reporting to parents in primary school: …...reporting to parents in primary school: communication,...

ResearchReportNo.9

Kathy Hall, Paul F. Conway, Anne Rath, Rosaleen Murphy, Jacinta McKeon

Reporting to Parents in Primary School: Communication, Meaning and Learning

2Boyd Freeman [email protected]+ 353 (0)87 2442506

ReportingtoParentsinPrimary

School:Communication,

MeaningandLearning

Kathy Hall, Paul F. Conway, Anne Rath, Rosaleen Murphy, Jacinta McKeon University College, Cork (UCC)

Research Report commissioned by the National Council for Curriculum

and Assessment (NCCA)

February 2008


© NCCA 2008

ISSN 1649-3362

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment

24, Merrion Square, Dublin 2.

www.ncca.ie


Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the many people who contributed to the

work in this report. Firstly we would like to thank the principals,

teachers, parents, and children who played host to us for the case

study component and to the school staff members who completed

the questionnaire survey. We are grateful to them for sharing their

perspectives and for giving so generously of their time. We are also

grateful to the school principals who completed the online survey.

Our thanks to the NCCA and its personnel who have offered

guidance and clarified their needs yet allowed the study to proceed

independently. We hope this Final Report contributes to an

understanding of the current reporting practices in Irish primary

schools.

The authors of the report acknowledge the support of several other

colleagues who contributed to the fieldwork, the sampling design,

and questionnaire design especially the following: Susan Burke, Dr.

Neil Buttimer, Sean Cottrell, Denice Cunningham, Alicia Curtin,

Máire Darmody, David Dungalvin ,Christine Fanning, Tadelle Hagos,

Hannah Joyce, Stephanie Larkin, Anne Lynch, Geraldine Marnane,

David Meade, Deirbhile Nic Chraith, Marie Nash, Dr. David

O’Sullivan, Dr. Elena Papanastasiou, Louise Phelan, Dr. Sandra Ryan

and Dr. Dorothy Watson. We also acknowledge the support of the

IPPN, the INTO, the ESRI and the Research Support Office,

University College Cork (UCC).


6

CONTENTS

List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

0.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

0.2 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

0.3 Formal Reporting Policies and Practices . . . . . . . . 20

0.4 Other Reporting Mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

0.5 Reporting on Standardised Assessments . . . . . . . . 23

0.6 Outcomes and Experiences: Learners and Parents . . . 23

0.7 Findings and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . 27

CHAPTER ONE REPORTING TO PARENTS

IN PRIMARY SCHOOL: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

1.2 Reporting: the Irish Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

1.3 Reporting and Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

1.4 Effective reporting and partnership with parents . . . . 37

CHAPTER TWO RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . . . . 45

2.1 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

2.2 Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

2.2.1 Case Studies: Data Collection,

Data Analysis, Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

2.2.2 Questionnaire Survey: Design, Administration, Data

Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

CHAPTER THREE POLICIES, PRACTICES AND

OUTCOMES: .ANALYSIS .OF .CASE .STUDY .DATA . . . . 61

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62


7

3.2 Policy and Practice: Reporting Mechanisms . . . . . . 62

3.2.1 The School Report: Format,

Content and Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

3.2.2 The Annual Parent-Teacher Meeting:

Format and Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

3.2.3 Standardised Tests, Homework, Class Tests. . . . . . 75

3.2.4 Dealing with Linguistic Diversity. . . . . . . . . . 79

3.2.5 ‘Open Door’ Access for Parents . . . . . . . . . . 82

3.3 Outcomes of the School Reporting Process:

Parental and learner experiences. . . . . . . . . . . . 86

3.3.1 The Learner Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

3.3.2 Parents’ Access to Information about

their Children’s Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

3.3.2.1 Parental Appreciation of Informal Contacts . . . . 94

3.3.2.2 Variation across Parents: School

and Class Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

3.3.2.3 Parent-Teacher Meetings and the

Quality of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

3.3.2.4 Fear of ‘disturbing teacher’s work’ . . . . . . . . . 103

3.3.3 Variability within Schools: Children with SEN . . . 107

3.4 Summary of Main Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

3.4.1 Policy and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

3.4.2 Outcomes and Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

CHAPTER FOUR SURVEY OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS’

REPORTING PRACTICES - RESULTS . . . . . . . . . 115

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

4.2 Profile of Schools Completing Survey . . . . . . . . . 118

4.2.1 Sample: Intended and Achieved . . . . . . . . . . 118

4.2.2 Sample: DEIS status and enrolment. . . . . . . . . 121


8

4.2.3 Sample: Language of instruction,

school type and student diversity . . . . . . . . . . 122

4.3 School reporting policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

4.3.1 Written policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

4.3.2 Written policy statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

4.3.3 Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

4.3.4 Induction of new teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

4.4 School practice on reporting: Recording,

report cards and other written communication. . . . . 128

4.4.1 Recording. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

4.4.2 Provision of written report card . . . . . . . . . . 131

4.4.3 Report card content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

4.4.5 When are report cards sent home? . . . . . . . . . 135

4.4.6 Communicating about and supporting

understanding of report cards and standardised tests 136

4.4.7 Linguistic diversity and reporting to parents . . . . 140

4.4.8 Fostering parental involvement . . . . . . . . . . . 141

4.4.9 Satisfaction with and redesign of report cards . . . . 143

4.5 School practice in reporting: Parent-teacher meetings . 144

4.5.1 Parent-teacher meetings: Who and when? . . . . . 145

4.5.2 Principals’ views of parent reaction to

parent-teacher meetings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

4.6 Reporting and learning: School composition, parental

involvement and perceptions of effective

involvement and school efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

4.6.1 Reporting, learning and school organisational

practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

4.6.2 Structural equation models. . . . . . . . . . . . . 149


9

4.7 Reporting Practices and Policies: Successes,

challenges and priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

4.7.1 Successful aspects of reporting:

Views of principals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

4.7.2 Challenging aspects of reporting:

Views of Principals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

4.7.3 Priorities in developing reporting practice:

Views of principals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

4.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

CHAPTER FIVE: .SUMMARY .AND .

RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

5.2 Formal Reporting Policies and Practices . . . . . . . . 168

5.3 Other Reporting Mechanisms. . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

5.4 Reporting on Standardised Assessments . . . . . . . . 172

5.5 Outcomes and Experiences: Learners and Parents . . . 172

5.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

5.7 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

APPENDIX ONE The Case Studies: Interview schedules. . . . 193

Interview Schedule: Principal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

Teacher Reflection Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

Teacher Interview Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Parent Interview Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Interview schedule: Parents of non-English

speaking children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

Interview Schedule for Focus Group with Children . . . . . 204

Reflection Sheet for Focus Group with Children. . . . . . . 206


10

APPENDIX 2: .EXAMPLES .OF .REPORT .CARDS . . . . 207

Report Card 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

Report Card 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Report Card 3(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

Report Card 3(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

APPENDIX 3: .THE .SURVEY .COMPLETED .

BY .PRINCIPALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

School Survey Form: For Completion by School Principal . . 214

On-line Survey Sample Pages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

Email to Principals: Invitation to Complete Survey . . . . . . 231

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1.1: Dimension of assessment purposes and practices . . 34

Table 2.1: Research questions and methods . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table 2.2: Summary Profiles of Case Study Schools . . . . . . 53

Table 2.3: Case Study Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Table 4.1: Intended Sample vis-à-vis Population Data . . . . . 120

Table 4.2: Intended and Achieved Sample. . . . . . . . . . . 121

Table 4.3: Location, language of instruction and student

age range: summary data on achieved sample . . . . 122

Table 4.4: Number of student and families in achieved

sample schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Figure 4.1: Language of Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Table 4.5: Induction for newly qualified teachers (n=141) . . . 128

Table 4.6: Information kept as record of child’s development

achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Table 4.7: Information entered on child’s report card

(count & percent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134


11

Table 4.8: When schools report to parents using the

written report (frequency) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Table 4.9a: How does your school help parents

understand standardised tests (tick two) . . . . . . . 137

Table 4.9b: What kind of information is shared and

how does your school help parents to

understand standardised tests? . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Table 4.9c: Overview of concepts associated with

standardised test scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Table 4.10: In order to improve communication with

parents who do not speak English the school

has in the past year used the following strategies . . 141

Table 4.11: Ways in which school shares information

with and promote parental involvement . . . . . . 142

Table 4.12: Themes your school would include if you

were designing report cards for parents? . . . . . . 143

Table 4.13: Who usually attends parent-teacher meetings? . . . 146

Table 4.14: Parents’ reactions to hearing about different

aspects of their child’s learning and development . . 147

Table 4.15: Fit indices of the structural model . . . . . . . . . 151

Figure 4.2: Influence of school social composition,

parental involvement perceptions of

effectiveness of parental involvement

strategies and reporting on principals’

perceptions of school efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Table 4.16: Standardized and Unstandardized

path coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154


12

List of Acronyms

AfL: Assessment for Learning

AoL: Assessment of Learning

DES: Department of Education and Science

DEIS: Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools

ESRI: Economic and Social Research Institute

EAL: English as an Additional Language

EPSEN: Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act,

2004

HSCL: Home School Community Liaison Scheme

ICTs: Information and Communication Technologies

IEP: Individual Education Plan

INTO: Irish National Teachers Organisation

IPPN: Irish Primary Principals Network LS: Learning Support

MIST: Middle Infant Screening Test, used to identify early literacy

difficulties

NCCA: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment

NQT: Newly Qualified Teacher

SEN: Special Education Needs

SES: Socio-economic status

SNA: Special Needs Assistant


13

Glossary

Assessment is the process of gathering, recording, interpreting, using,

and reporting information about a child’s progress and achievement

in developing knowledge, skills and attitudes.

Assessment for Learning (AfL) involves using assessment in the

classroom to raise pupils’ achievement. It usually takes place in the

day-to day interactions between teachers and children. It emphasises

the child’s active role in his/her own learning, as it is based on the

idea that pupils will improve most if they understand what the

outcome of their learning should be, how they can achieve that

outcome and the criteria for judging to what extent the outcome

has been achieved. Providing feedback is central to AfL.

Assessment of Learning (AoL) focuses on assessing a child’s

learning at the end of a given period, such as a unit of work a term

or a year, The emphasis is on measuring a child’s progress towards

curriculum objectives. Teachers use AoL to assess and periodically

record children’s progress and achievement for the purpose of

reporting to parents, teachers and other relevant persons.

DEIS: Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools is an action

plan introduced by the Department of Education and Science in

2005, under which schools with high levels of children at risk of

educational disadvantage receive additional supports under the

School Support Programme.

Drumcondra Achievement Tests: a range of standardised tests in

literacy and numeracy produced by the Educational Research Centre.

Early Start: Early Start is a one-year pre-school programme offered

in selected schools in educationally disadvantaged areas.


14

Home School Community Liaison (HSCL) scheme is concerned

with establishing partnership and collaboration between parents and

teachers in the interests of children’s learning. The local coordinator,

an experienced teacher deployed from the staff of the school to full

time work with parents and community, is assigned to a school or

school cluster in disadvantaged areas to work with school staff,

parents and relevant community agencies in advancing the

educational interests of children.

Individual Education Plan: An Individual Education Plan (IEP) is a

written document prepared for a named student which specifies the

learning goals that are to be achieved by the student over a set

period of time and the teaching strategies, resources and supports

necessary to achieve those goals.

Language support teacher: Schools are granted a language support

teaching post for every 14 pupils with low English proficiency. Such

pupils are entitled to a maximum of two years support in addition to

the mainstream classroom. Schools are limited to a maximum of

three language support teachers, regardless of pupil numbers.

Learning support and resource teacher: A learning support and

resource teacher caters for children with learning delays or with a

high-incidence disability such as mild general learning disability or

dyslexia. They add to the support given to the child by the class

teacher.

Likert scale: a scale used in questionnaires, which measures attitudes,

e.g. by asking respondents which of a five point scale ( Strongly

Disagree, Disagree, No Opinion, Agree, Strongly Agree) represents

their view on a statement.

MICRA-T: a range of standardised norm-referenced English reading

tests for children from first to sixth class.


15

Parents: Throughout this report, the term parents refers to the child’s

primary caregivers and educators. These include the child’s father and

mother and/or guardians.

Parent-teacher meeting: Schools are required to hold a formal

meeting with individual parents at least once a year in order to

report on children’s progress and attainments.

Qualitative research methods: Qualitative research usually involves

field work in a small number of settings and the use of methods such

as interviews, observations, focus groups and participant observation.

The qualitative researcher is interested in discovering and describing

behaviour in context, and in how people understand and make sense

of their lives. The researcher him/herself is the primary instrument

for collecting and interpreting data.

Quantitative research methods: Quantitative research is carried out

to test hypotheses rather than to generate them. A quantitative survey

involves the use of structured questions where the response options

have been predetermined. It requires a large number of respondents.

The quantitative researcher must be able to demonstrate that

conclusions are statistically valid and reliable.

Report cards: Report cards are forms which teachers use to report

children’s achievement to parents, usually mid-year or at the end of

the school year or both. The report cards may be drawn up by the

school or by the individual teacher, or they may be one of a number

of commercially available formats. The NCCA has drawn up a set of

report card templates to help schools report to parents.

Resource teacher: A resource helps schools to support children

with low-incidence special needs arising from disability. These

children may, for example, have a hearing or visual impairment, a

physical disability, a moderate or severe general learning disability,


16

several disabilities together, emotional difficulties, autism, or a speech

and language disorder. (National Council for Special Education,

2006)

SIGMA-T: a range of standardised norm-referenced mathematics

tests used with children from first to sixth class.

Standardised tests: a standardised test is an instrument of assessment

that contains standardised procedures for its administration and

scoring and for the interpretation of its results. The Sigma T, the

Micra T and the Drumcondra Primary Assessments are all examples

of standardised tests.

Standard scores; The results of standardised tests may be reported

using a standard score. Standard scores usually range between 55 and

145 with an average of 100.

STen scores: The results of standardised tests may be reported using

a STen (standard ten) score. STen scores go from 1 to 10. A score of

5-6 is average, 8-10 is well above average, and 1-3 is well below

average

Special Educational Needs (SEN) means, in relation to a person, “a

restriction in the capacity of the person to participate in and benefit

from education on account of an enduring physical, sensory, mental

health, or learning disability, or any other condition which results in

a person learning differently from a person without that condition”

(Section 1, Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs

Act, 2004). Children with special educational needs may be in

ordinary classes in mainstream primary schools or in special classes in

these schools. They may get help from learning support and resource

teachers and from Special Needs Assistants (SNAs).

Special Needs Assistant (SNA): The Special Needs Assistant helps

with the care of students with disabilities in an educational context.


17

E x E c u t i v E

S u m m a r y


18

0.1 introduction

How schools report to parents about the learning of their children is

becoming increasingly important and challenging in the light of a)

new developments and understanding about learning and assessment,

b) Ireland’s relatively recent cultural diversity, and c) recent legislation

and official policy highlighting how schools are accountable to

students, parents and the State. The NCCA’s Reporting Children’s

Progress in Primary Schools endorses the role of parents, as partners

with schools, in extending children’s learning. School reporting

practices are central to this role. The nature of these practices is the

theme of this NCCA-commissioned study. In terms of assessment

policy and practice, we note that reporting is more closely linked

with summative than formative assessment (as indicated in the shaded

column in Table 1). As such, in terms of formal reporting at both

parent-teacher meetings and in relation to written report cards the

emphasis is on ‘what has been learned by students to date’, that is,

‘assessment of learning’ (AoL).

However, as Assessment for Learning (AfL) becomes more central to

teachers’ work in schools (as is likely in the Irish primary schools),

the formative-summative relationship is likely to change somewhat.

Nevertheless, formal reporting will maintain its important summative

function.

The principal aim of this study was to examine existing policy and

practice of reporting to parents and to offer evidence-based

recommendations that could enhance the process. Chapters 1 and 2

set the background for the study and describe the research design,

while chapters 3, 4 and 5 present and discuss the results. This

Executive Summary presents a summary of the main findings of the

case studies and survey and it then goes on to draw out the

implications and recommendations for policy and practice in light


19

the findings and recent developments in primary assessment policy1

(NCCA, 2005; NCCA, 2006; NCCA, 2007).

Table 0.1: Dimension of assessment purposes and practices2

Formative ↔ Summative

Informal Formative

Formal formative

Informal summative

Formal summative

Major focus What are the next steps in learning?

What has been achieved to date?

Purpose To inform next steps in learning

To inform next steps in teaching

To monitor progress against plans

To record achievements of individuals

How is evidence collected?

As normal part of class work

Introduced into normal class work


Separate task or test

Basis of judgement

Student referenced

Student and criterion referenced

Criterion referenced

Criterion or norm referenced

Judged by Student and teacher

Teacher Teacher Teacher or external marker

Action taken Feedback to students and teacher

Feedback into teaching plans


Report to student, parent, others, etc.

Epithet Assessment for learning

Matching Dip stick Assessment of learning

SOURCE: Adapted from Harlen, 2006

0.2 rESEarchdESign

1. Policy and practice were investigated using a combination of

case study methodology and a large-scale questionnaire survey.

Six schools were selected to represent the diversity of school

settings. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were

used to probe the perspectives and practices of principals,

1 Harlen, W. (2006) On the relationship between assessment for formative and summative purposes. In J. Gardner (Ed). Assessment and Learning, London: Sage.

2 NCCA (2005). Reporting children’s progress in primary schools: Background paper. Dublin: Author. NCCA (2006). Draft Report Card Templates Overview: Information for Schools. Dublin: Author. NCCA (2007). Assessment in the Primary School Curriculum: Guidelines for Schools. Dublin: Author


20

teachers, parents and children. Fieldwork spanned the summer

and autumn terms of 2007. A national online questionnaire

survey of a stratified sample of primary schools (412 of 3,292)

was conducted in late Autumn 2007 which sought to

represent practice more broadly. It resulted in a satisfactory, if

less than ideal, response rate of 45%.

0.3 FormalrEportingpoliciESandpracticES

2. All our case study schools have clear procedures in place for

reporting to parents although not all have a written policy. The

questionnaire survey shows that approximately one in four

schools (28%) have a written policy on the use of school

reports and approximately two out of three schools (67%) have

a written policy on parent-teacher meetings.

3. A school report is prepared for each child in our case study

schools and sent to parents annually towards the end of the

school year. They tend to follow a standard commercially-

produced format and contain a space for a brief comment in

relation to every subject of the curriculum, other aspects of

learning and schooling, specifically social development,

attendance, homework, and general attitude to learning.

Teachers say that they draw on a wide range of information in

writing their reports, from their own observations in class to

results of assessments, including standardised tests, and

homework. The thrust of this evidence is confirmed by the

survey. Of significance in the survey however is that while 5

out of 6 schools reported that they do send written report

cards to parents approximately 1 in 6 schools3 reported that

they do not provide parents with a written report.

Furthermore, there was a statistically significant difference

3 As noted above there is a margin of error associated with this estimate. Due to the lower than hoped for response the margin of error or confidence level is plus or minus 8 points.


21

between rural and urban schools in provision of report cards.

Three out of four rural schools provide a written report card

to parents whereas eleven out of twelve urban schools do so.

In terms of the type of report card, approximately two out of

three schools use a commercially produced report card and the

remaining one third use a school produced report card.

4. Teachers and principals are very concerned to represent

children’s learning positively and honestly in school reports

and in meetings with parents. This is captured by the

expression of one principal, ‘nothing should come as a

surprise’. Teachers and principals expressed their concern of

the potential negative impact on children of critical reports.

They are also wary of writing down their interpretations of

children in too much detail, preferring to discuss issues in

faceto-face settings. Schools keep school reports for many

years after pupils have left the school. Over 2 in 5 schools

(43%) store report cards until the child is 21 years of age

(consistent with NCCA’s 2007 assessment guidelines for

schools, p. 80), one third of schools store report cards until the

child has left post-primary education and one in five schools

keep report cards until the child leaves primary school.

5. All six case-study schools arrange a parent-teacher meeting

annually, typically in the middle of the Autumn term. One

school schedules this meeting in the summer term after the

school report has been sent out and this then provides a focus

for the meeting. The standard format is for teachers to be

available on a particular afternoon/evening and for parents to

be offered a slot of about 15 minutes during which they,

usually the mother, has a one-to-one meeting with the child’s

teacher/or with the learning resource teacher if the child has

special educational needs. Some schools are more creative in


22

seeking to accommodate parents making themselves available

to meet with parents from 7.30 every morning for several

weeks. Teachers report that this practice increases the incidence

of fathers’ attendance at meetings and it is highly appreciated

by parents.

6. The range of languages spoken by parents of newcomer

children is perceived by responding principals as providing a

significant communication challenge for schools. In responding

to this challenge schools rely mainly on two strategies: to ask a

parent or other adult from that language community who

speaks English to translate (just under a third of schools) and/

or to ask a student (of primary age) from that language

community who speaks English to translate (1 in 6 schools).

0.4 othErrEportingmEchaniSmS

7. Schools also use and value a range of other ways of reporting

to parents including homework journals/diaries (2 out of 3

schools), tests (e.g. weekly spelling tests) and 2 out of 3 schools

report that they use a behaviour reporting system (e.g. star

system for discipline). There was a statistically significant

difference between rural and urban schools in the use of

behaviour reporting system. Two in three urban schools

employ such a system, whereas only one in three rural schools

do so. One multi-ethnic school’s exceptional approaches to

involve and communicate with parents about children’s

learning include bi-weekly newsletters, coffee mornings, food

fairs and other inter-cultural events. In addition, all our case

study schools define themselves as operating an ‘open door’

policy in relation to parents, meaning that they are regularly

accessible to parents and have frequent conversations with

parents informally as they bring and collect children to and


23

from school. The latter was reported as being especially the

case for children in the early years of school and for those

with special educational needs.

0.5 rEportingonStandardiSEdaSSESSmEntS

8. While schools do administer a range of tests and assessment

procedures, typically reading assessments in infant classes and

Drumcondra Achievement Tests in middle and upper levels,

schools tend not to forward assessment information in the

form of test results to parents. Most schools interpret the

results of assessments, particularly standardised assessments, and

communicate their interpretations to parents in parent-teacher

meetings. The case studies and the survey show that results of

standardised tests tend to be given to parents only by

appointment. When results are communicated to parents this is

typically done by the class teacher in 2 out of 3 schools, by the

learning support or resource teacher (1 in 3 schools) and by

the principal in 1 in 6 schools.

9. Children deemed to have special educational needs (SEN)

experience higher levels of assessment and are reported on in

more detail and more frequently than their peers not so

specified. Parents of children with special educational needs

have more contact with schools about their children’s progress.

0.6 outcomESandExpEriEncES:lEarnErSandparEntS

10. Teachers are clear and unanimous about the purpose of the

annual parent-teacher meeting: it is to inform parents of their

children’s progress, to communicate their learning strengths

and weaknesses, and help in identifying ways of supporting

their child’s learning at home. While they are sensitive to the

need to engage with what parents think is important, our


24

evidence generally suggests that teachers operate this forum as

one in which they are in telling and explanation mode and

parents are listening. The short time frame for these meetings

would seem to focus minds on progress from the teacher’s

perspective. The impression our evidence gives is that other

more informal occasions are assumed to cater for issues that do

not pertain directly to children’s progress.

11. Teachers report that they find the parent-teacher meeting

more significant than the school report in terms of enabling

parents understand and support their children’s progress. They

report that parents share written and verbal reports with their

children and that parents discuss their children’s school reports

among themselves.

12. Teachers and principals perceive that parents are the main

audience for the school report and, while reports are kept in

school and are accessible to teachers, they do not typically

consult them when they get new children/class.

13. For schools a major challenge to effective reporting practice is

perceived to be linguistic diversity or more specifically the fact

that increasing numbers of parents and children do not have

adequate English to participate fully in the reporting

procedures. This is confirmed by the questionnaire data where

principals reported that parents who do not speak English or

who may have difficultly communicating in English represent

‘a significant communication challenge’. While schools in our

case study sample vary in the scale of this challenge and in

how they are addressing it, a common response is the use of

community members as translators.

14. Our evidence points to more variation among parents than

among teachers/schools in how they interpret their


25

opportunities to find out about their children’s learning and in

their general satisfaction with the process of reporting. There is

also more variation across parents.

15. While many parents we interviewed expressed positive views

about their experience of school reports and meetings,

particularly those in one multi-ethnic school, others are less

satisfied and do not experience their schools as quite as

accessible as the schools describe and perceive themselves to

be. Our data suggests a class divide here with parents associated

with schools serving middle class catchments being very much

more satisfied about their understanding of their children’s

progress than their counterparts in schools serving lower

socioeconomic groups. Many of the latter parents (and some

of the former) expressed uncertainty about the meaning of

terms on school reports, of test results and generally of

curriculum and assessment issues. They are more reluctant to

question teachers and seek clarification on issues, seeing

themselves as potentially disturbing teachers’ work by seeking

such help. They are also dissatisfied with the timing and

amount of time allocated to parent teacher meetings, feeling

that they are too infrequent, too short and not sufficiently

flexibly scheduled.

16. The parents from minority ethnic backgrounds whose first

language is not English and who participated in the case

studies are especially positive about their experience of the

reporting process. (Many of these participants are relative

newcomers to the country). However, our evidence suggests

that the traveller community may be less satisfied with their

experience vis-à-vis reporting.


26

17. While teachers acknowledge, to some extent, the problematic

nature of sharing meanings of evaluations of children’s

learning, parents are more concerned than teachers about the

lack of common understandings. The survey results show that

schools have some strategies in place to address this issue: some

45% claim to have staff meetings to agree terms used in the

school report.

18. School reports and parent-teacher meetings are very significant

events for learners, their occurrence engendering a wide range

of emotions from anxiety to excitement and from pride to

disappointment. No child interviewed was indifferent. Our

evidence confirms the deep interest children have in their own

learning, many expressing the wish to attend and contribute to

the parent-teacher meeting. Most expressed mature views

about what they believe is absent from or inadequately

detailed in the current reporting structure, namely, sport,

drama, music and art. Some pupils expressed an interest in

having more information about how to improve their learning.

19. Analysis of the survey data suggests that reporting practices (in

the context of current practice in assessment and reporting) do

not influence principals’ perceptions that schools can impact

student learning. Situating reporting practices in the context of

the model of parental involvement, school composition and

learning, the analysis indicates that principals in schools with

large numbers of students as well as more SEN students and

language support teachers, with higher intake of students from

another ethnicity, were more likely to (i) indicate higher levels

of parental involvement (ii) have higher expectations that their

school could impact student learning. These relationships were

weak but statistically significant.


27

0.7 FindingSandrEcommEndationS

1. A key recommendation emerging from the evidence is that

parents need more opportunities to negotiate the meaning of

accounts of their children’s learning. Terms like ‘fair’ and

‘excellent’ and assessment results need to be better interpreted

and contextualised for parents so that meanings are opened up

and better understood. We recommend that policy makers and

school leaders consider the necessary school structures and professional

contracts that would enable greater parental participation in assessment

and reporting.

2. A key finding was that a small but significant minority of

schools do not send written report cards home. As such,

parents of children in those schools are missing out on an

opportunity to learn about their children’s progress in school.

We recommend that all schools be required to send a written report

card to parents.

3. We recommend that schools should send a mid-year report to parents

about their children’s learning and that this report would provide the

basis for learner and parental conversation and commentary. This

would ensure that school reports serve a formative (as well as a

summative) purpose.

4. We recommend that Whole School Evaluations explicitly attend to the

reporting dimension of school policy and practice.

5. In light of the strategies adopted by schools (asking parents,

other adults or primary age children to translate) to

communicate with parents who either do not speak English of

have difficulty communicating in English, we recommend that

guidelines be developed, and where necessary additional resources

beyond those currently available be provided, to support schools in

such work.


28

6. With reference to the new emphasis on assessment for

learning and on the increased emphasis on assessment and

reporting more generally, we recommend that schools have the

opportunity to engage in within-school, across-school, and especially

within-level/class professional dialogue about evaluations of children’s

learning. We also recommend that schools have the opportunity to

develop exemplars that would support the production of narrative

accounts of children’s learning that are trustworthy. Such initiatives

could offer a way of extending shared perspectives about what

constitutes ‘excellent’ etc. achievement in various curricular

areas.

7. In the context of policy expectation that schools utilise

standardised tests to assess students (DES/Circular 0138/2006)4

we recommend that further guidance be provided that supports teachers

(class, special needs and resource) and principals in communicating the

results of such tests in a meaningful manner in the context of other

evidence of student learning and achievement.

8. In the light of the demands for assessment data recording and

storage, we recommend that robust and reliable record storage systems

be developed to support school’s ability to record, store and retrieve

assessment data for different audiences and purposes.

4 DES (2006). Supporting Assessment in Primary Schools: Circular 0138/2006. Dublin: Author


29

c h a p t E r o n E

r E p o r t i n g t o

p a r E n t S :

t h E c o n t E x t


30

1.1introduction

A review of policy and practice on reporting to parents5 of primary

school children seems timely, having regard to the many changes

relating to curriculum and assessment that have been introduced in

Ireland in recent years. Parents, especially of primary school children,

play a critical role in supporting their children’s learning and

development. In order to do this effectively, they need information

on how their children are progressing, and on how best to support,

reinforce and extend their learning. Reporting is closely linked to

assessment, since schools need to assess children’s progress in order to

give feedback that is accurate, timely and meaningful both to students

and their parents.

The study was commissioned by the NCCA, which advises the

Minster for Education and Science on curriculum and assessment for

early childhood education and for primary and post-primary schools.

It will inform the NCCA in its on-going work in relation to

reporting and assessment.

The purpose of this study was to explore existing policy and practice

on reporting to parents in Irish primary schools. This initial chapter

sets out the context in which schools report to parents, and identifies

some of the considerations that must be taken into account when

considering reporting in general. Chapter Two describes the research

methods used in this study. Chapter Three presents the qualitative

case study element of the research and Chapter Four gives a detail

account of the findings from the quantitative element, an on-line

survey of primary schools. Chapter Five summarises the main

findings, highlights the important issues that emerged, identifies some

issues for consideration and makes some recommendations for future

developments in this area.

5 Parents: Throughout this report, the term parents refers to the child’s primary caregivers and educators. These include the child’s father and mother and/or guardians.


31

1.2rEporting:thEiriShcontExt

This study set out to investigate current views and practices in

reporting in primary schools in Ireland, with the aim of achieving an

understanding of what constitutes effective reporting to parents.

Knowledge of current policies and practices is fundamental to

achieving this understanding. Reporting to parents serves two main

purposes. The first is to satisfy the requirement that schools are

accountable to parents and are required to keep them informed of

their children’s progress and attainments. The second is curriculum-

related; effective reporting enables parents to know more about what

their children are learning and how they can support this. Reporting

is therefore an important part of the partnership between home and

school.

Reporting may be defined primarily as the gathering, interpreting,

recording and communicating of information on children’s progress

in school to their parents. This information will, of course, serve

many other purposes: it will help to inform teaching and learning, it

will form part of the pupil’s record and may be consulted by other

teachers as the child progresses through the school, and it may be

used to identify a need for intervention or learning support. Thus,

reporting is linked to the on-going process of planning, evaluating,

assessing and giving feedback to children and their parents that is an

integral part of effective teaching and learning in the primary school.

As well as being an important part of the relationship between school

and home, there are legislative requirements that govern how schools

report to parents. The Education Act (Ireland, 1998) recognises that

the education system is accountable to students, their parents and the

State. Primary schools are also now required to administer

standardised6 tests in literacy and numeracy to all children at least

twice in a child’s school career, once at the end of first class/

6 A standardised test is an instrument of assessment that contains standardised procedures for its administration and scoring and for the interpretation of its results.


32

beginning of second class and again at the end of fourth class/

beginning of fifth class and to communicate the results of these tests

to parents in respect of their own children (Department of Education

and Science (DES) Circular 0138/2006).

Parents are entitled under Education Act (1998) and the Data

Protection (Amendment) Act (2003) to regular information about

the progress and achievement

of their children and to access any personal data relating to their

children kept by the school, and are therefore entitled to see the

results of these assessments. Schools are required to hold at least one

formal parent-teacher meeting per year (DES Circular PC14/04) and

to give parents as much information as possible on all aspects of the child’s

progress and development (DES Circular 24/91). The importance of

schools having regular consultations with parents is stressed in the

Primary Curriculum (DES, 1999) both to inform them about their

children’s progress and so that teachers can benefit from the

knowledge that parents have about their own children.

The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs (EPSEN)

Act (2004) further extends the role of the school in relation to

diagnostic assessment. Under the EPSEN Act, in order to identify

children with special educational needs (SEN), schools are required

to assess children in their second year of school and, in consultation

with parents, to draw up individual education plans (IEPs) and to

organise appropriate supports.

All schools therefore report to parents on the progress of students,

both formally and informally. The two main formal methods that

have traditionally been used to report to parents are the written

annual report and the usually annual parent-teacher meeting. Along

with these, schools communicate regularly with parents by a variety

of means: homework notebooks and journals, newsletters, test copies


33

where parents are asked to sign the results of weekly classroom tests

of spelling or mathematics, informal meetings at the beginning or

end of the school day, phone calls, individual meetings by

appointment to discuss issues of concern, e-mails and so on. Schools

report to parents not only to inform them of their children’s progress

but to enable them to give appropriate support at home to their

children’s learning. Parents of children with SEN are especially

involved in the process of planning for their children’s learning, since

under the EPSEN Act (2004) they must be consulted when

individual education plans are being drawn up for their children.

1.3rEportingandaSSESSmEnt

In practice and in the literature generally, reporting and assessment

are closely linked. Assessment is defined in the National Council for

Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) Guidelines as

the process of gathering, recording, interpreting, using, and

reporting information about a child’s progress and achievement

in developing knowledge, skills and attitudes (NCCA 2007,

p. 7).

Teachers continually use this information to plan for learning, to give

feedback to children, and also to report to parents, teachers and other

relevant persons. In the Primary School Curriculum (1998),

assessment was described as having four functions: formative,

summative, evaluative and diagnostic. Formal reporting to parents has

traditionally been linked mainly with the summative and diagnostic

aspects of assessment, with a lesser emphasis on the formative aspects.

The end-ofyear school report for example generally gives a record of

the pupil’s levels of attainment in the different subject areas of the

Primary School Curriculum, along with some brief comments on

social and personal development (see scanned examples in Appendix

2). The timing of this report, often at the very end of the school year,


34

meant that there was little opportunity for feedback or discussion on

its contents.

In terms of assessment policy and practice therefore, we note that

reporting is more closely linked with summative than formative

assessment (as indicated in the shaded column in Table 1.1). As such,

in terms of formal reporting at both parent-teacher meetings and in

relation to written report cards the emphasis is on ‘what has been

learned by students to date’, that is, Assessment of Learning (AoL)

although as Assessment for Learning (AfL) becomes increasingly

important, this will have implications for reporting also.

Table 1.1 Dimension of assessment purposes and practices7

Formative ↔ Summative

Informal Formative

Formal formative

Informal summative

Formal summative

Major focus What are the next steps in learning?

What has been achieved to date?

Purpose To inform next steps in learning

To inform next steps in teaching

To monitor progress against plans

To record achievements of individuals

How is evidence collected?

As normal part of class work



Separate task or test

Basis of judgement

Student referenced

Student and criterion referenced

Criterion referenced

Criterion or norm referenced

Judged by Student and teacher

Teacher Teacher Teacher or external marker

Action taken Feedback to students and teacher



Report to student, parent, others, etc.

Epithet Assessment for learning

Matching Dip stick Assessment of learning

SOURCE: Adapted from Harlen, 2006

7 Harlen, W. (2006) On the relationship between assessment for formative and summative purposes. In J. Gardner (Ed). Assessment and Learning, London: Sage.


35

Assessment of Learning is an integral part of teaching and learning.

All teachers periodically record children’s progress and achievement

for the purpose of reporting to parents, teachers and other relevant

persons. AoL typically takes place at the end of a learning period, and

may include a variety of assessment tools such as teacher-devised

spelling or mathematics tests or standardised tests. It is common

practice for teachers to conduct weekly or monthly tests and to send

home the results for parents to sign. These are normally tests devised

by the teacher in order to see whether short-term learning goals

have been met. Schools also use standardised tests as part of AoL.

These tests are norm-referenced, that is they are used to measure a

child’s achievement compared to other children throughout the

country at the same class level or age (Bond, 1996; NCCA 2007).

Since 2007, schools are required to carry out standardised tests in

English reading and mathematics at least twice in a child’s school

career, and to report these results to parents (DES, 2006). While many

teachers have used these tests regularly in the past, they have not

always shared the results with parents or with children. They are now

required to do so, and the challenge for schools is find ways of

sharing this information in a way that is meaningful, constructive and

timely.

In recent years, there has been a widespread re-envisioning of

assessment, and Assessment for Learning (AfL) has become

increasingly important. This in turn means that traditional reporting

practices may also need to be reviewed. Assessment is now seen not

only as a measure of what has been learned but as an important part

of the learning process (Assessment Reform Group, 1999; Black and

Wiliam, 1998; Broadfoot and Black, 2004; Earl, 2003, Hall and Burke,

2003; Learning and Teaching Scotland, 2005, 2007; Council for the

Curriculum Examinations & Assessment, Northern Ireland, 2007;

QCA, 2007; Stiggins, 2002; Wiliam, 2007). In Assessment for

Learning the teacher gathers information by observing and listening


36

to the children on an on-going basis as part of the classroom routine,

and uses this information to answer three key questions:

• Where are children now in their learning?

• Where are children going in their learning?

• How will children get to the next point in their learning?

(NCCA, 2007)

However, AfL is far more than documenting learning and helping to

inform decisions about teaching and learning. Assessments are used to

build students’ confidence, motivation and responsibility for learning

(Stiggins, 2002, Black & William, 1998, NCCA 2006). Stiggins (2002)

argues that a focus on AfL dramatically influences the learning

environment and creates the conditions for higher student

engagement and learning. Students are helped to become better at

learning and learn to self-assess through the use of rubrics, portfolios

of work, and specific feedback that offers them the steps to improve

on their work. With AfL the criteria that a teacher uses in assessing

exemplary work are clearly communicated to students. This can

dramatically affect the quality of information that is reported to both

parents and children about their progress. Teachers need to use AfL to

set out learning goals clearly to students and parents. In this way,

assessment is primarily used as a teaching and learning tool that is

communicated to students and parents. It also means that children

themselves would have an input into the reporting process.

The question then arises as to whether and how the results of both

AfL and AoL are communicated to parents, whether and how parents

make use of them, and how they are regarded by the children

themselves. Reporting has been described as central to teaching and

learning (Dimmock and O’Donoghue, 1997), but a number of studies

have shown that parents have not in the past always been given the


37

kind of information they really want (Cuttance and Stokes, 2000;

Hughes et al, 1994; O’Donoghue and Dimmock 2002; Wolfendale,

2004). These and other studies (e.g. Broadfoot, 1990) have found that

parents want information about their children’s progress in both

academic and non-academic areas of development, given in a way

that is understandable and jargon-free. They want to know their

children’s strengths and weaknesses, and they want to know how they

can support their children’s learning at home (Bastiani and White,

2003).

Research suggests that reporting practices in Irish schools vary (Hall

and Kavanagh, 2002). The NCCA (2006) overview of reporting in

twelve countries found that in general while the content and

frequency of reporting is laid down nationally, the format of reports

is mainly decided at school or district level. However, there is a trend

towards making reports more informative and useful to parents, for

example in Sweden, Australia and Scotland (NFER, 2003; Cuttance

and Stokes, 2000; Queensland Government Department of Education

and the Arts, 2004; Learning and Teaching Scotland 2007). In a

number of countries (e.g. Sweden, Scotland, Australia, Northern

Ireland), reports are now expected to provide advice to parents on

the next stage in their children’s learning, rather than merely

summarising existing levels of achievement. A trend towards the

involvement of children themselves in drawing up the report, as a

form of self-assessment, was also noted in several countries. It seems

likely that reporting practices in Ireland will also change in tandem

with the changes in assessment practice laid down in the recent

guidelines on assessment.

1.4EFFEctivErEportingandpartnErShipwithparEntS

Reporting to parents is therefore an important part of the work of

the school. It is essential not only because schools are accountable to

parents, but because effective reporting enables parents to be involved


38

with their children’s learning. There is compelling research evidence

that involvement of parents in children’s education is a crucial

determinant of successful educational outcomes. The review of

literature on parent involvement by Desforges and Abouchaar (2003)

and the research synthesis by Henderson and Berla (1994), further

updated by Henderson and Mapp (2002), bring together a large

number of individual studies to this effect. Internationally, In the

United States, the work of the National Network of Partnership

Schools is based on the premise that parent involvement with their

children’s learning is crucial (Epstein, 1995, 2001; National Network

of Partnership Schools, 2007; Sheldon and Epstein, 2005). Initiatives

in England (QCA, 2007) and in Scotland (Learning and Teaching

Scotland, 2007) recognise the importance of partnership with parents,

as does the Home School Community Liaison (HSCL) Scheme in

Ireland (Conaty, 2002).

An Australian study (Cuttance and Stokes, 2000) found that parents

place a higher priority on receiving information about their

children’s progress than any other type of information they receive

from schools. They wanted to hear the ‘good news’ about their

children, but they also wanted to be told about any areas of concern.

They would like more information on future learning goals and how

to help their children to achieve these. In another recent study in

Wales on parent school partnerships in relation to students with

special educational needs, Wolfendale and Bryan, (2002) reported that

many parents had to struggle to get advice and information. Vernon,

(1999) in a similar evaluation noted the need for a cultural change

on the part of both teachers and professionals in the way they relate

to parents.

Effective reporting requires that parents are informed not only about

their children’s progress in learning but also about how best to

support this. Henderson & Berla, (1994) identify four key roles that

parents can play in their children’s learning. These roles include


39

parents as teachers, supporters, advocates and decision makers. For

successful reporting outcomes schools need to be aware of the

potential of these different roles and how they impact on children’s

negotiation of school, learning and progress. In reporting on

children’s progress to parents schools have an opportunity to enhance

and build on these capacities.

When parents have the opportunity to feed back information about

their children to teachers, it enables teachers to be more effective in

the classroom. However, parents may feel that the schools do not

always seek or welcome their input (Desforges, 2003; Hanafin and

Lynch, 2002; Ryan, 1994; Ryan, 1995). Wolfendale (2004) suggests

that traditional school reports and parent-teacher meetings can, at

worst, become examples of one-sided communication wherein teachers relay

information to parents, without adequate encouragement to parents to

reciprocate or to contribute equally valid information and views about their

children. Wolfendale goes on to suggest that reporting should be seen

in the broader context of partnership with parents, where parents can

contribute a different, additional and complementary view of the

child.

Many studies have found that that regular communication can

increase levels of parent involvement, especially among those parents

who have less formal education and who need additional structures

to engage in schools (Ames et al, 1995; Epstein & Dauber, 1991;

Dauber and Epstein, 1993; Moles, 1993). Regular communication

can also enable parents to take part in decisions that have to be made

about their children’s learning, for example if the child needs

learning support.

Issues of social class, culture, socio-economic status, language,

ethnicity, gender and ability/disability can all affect the relationship

between home and school. There is evidence to show for example

that much reporting to parents is actually reporting to mothers


40

(O’Brien, 2007). When there is a discontinuity between the culture

of the home and that of the school, there are extra challenges to

building productive learning partnerships between schools and

families (Crozier and Davies, 2007; Delpit, 1995; Ladston-Billings,

1995; Epstein, 1995; Ogbu, 1982; Lareau, 1987; Eccles and Harold,

1996; Heath Harold & Eccles, 1986; Ryan, 1994, 1995; Nieto, 1999;

Ran, 2001).

There can also be school-based obstacles to accessing information.

The timing of meetings can make it difficult for a parent who works

long hours or has a long commute to work to attend parent-teacher

or curriculum information meetings. Time constraints can mean that

parent-teacher meetings are rushed, without time to explore issues in

detail. Informal contact with parents can be affected by the physical

lay-out of the school, by the ages of the children (with parents of the

younger children generally more likely to have regular contact with

the teacher) and by the routines that are in place. If children are

brought to school by someone other than a parent, this also reduces

the opportunity for informal contact and means that teachers and

parents have to make a deliberate effort to meet. A parent may have

physical or sensory disabilities that make it difficult to access

information in the way it is presented to them, and if the school does

not take this into account, parents are cut off from important

knowledge about their children.

Some studies have found that the effectiveness of reporting to parents

can be limited by factors such as parents’ differing levels of fluency

and literacy in the language in which the report is presented or

unfamiliarity with the school system (Blair and Bourne, 1998;

Crozier and Davies, 2007; Ran, 2001). Parents’ own experiences,

expectations of and attitudes towards school can also affect their

ability to access and make use of information. People may also resist

or reject information ‘when it does not mesh with how they construct their


41

identities or the larger contexts of their lives’ (Mendoza et al. 2003).

Different cultural groups may bring different resources to their ability

to understand and interpret school reporting mechanisms and also

differences in their ability to support their children’s learning and

advocate for them. They may have views on what their children

should be learning at school that are different to those of the teacher;

for example they may think that children should begin reading and

writing at an earlier or later age. They may be accustomed to a more

formal or didactic style of teaching, or they may have a different

understanding of how the child’s progress should be measured, based

on their own experiences.

There is some evidence to show that working-class parents see their

relationship with their children’s schools differently to middle-class

parents (Lareau, 1987, 2003; Crozier, 1997; Crozier and Davies, 2007).

Students from families with a low socioeconomic status (SES)

continue to fare less well than their richer counterparts on literacy

and numeracy despite interventions (DES, 2005). It has been claimed

that as many as 25% of the population aged 16-25 have severe

literacy problems (OECD 1997). Some research shows that students

from a low SES background are more likely to receive a less

challenging curriculum and pedagogy (Smyth, 2002). In addition,

there is a serious deficit among students and parents regarding the

implications of decisions made about their schooling especially

among less well educated parents (Lyons et al, 200; Crozier, 1997).

According to Crozier, middle-class parents are better placed to

interpret the significance of information they are given about their

child, and to ask the kind of questions that will elicit further

information. In other words, they possess sufficient ‘cultural capital’

(Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990) to ‘decode’ the information they are

given.


42

Social class is not the only determinant of how parents interact with

schools. Increasingly, Irish schools are teaching culturally and

linguistic diverse students. Reporting on students’ progress to parents

from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds demands high levels

of skill in understanding and reflecting on the norms, assumptions,

expectations and the ‘taken for granted’ practices that have dominated

the educational system without challenge. Schools increasingly need

to have to capacity to become ‘cultural brokers’ and to mediate

different cultural systems and meanings (Gay, 1993). Reporting

mechanisms, whether formal or informal, provide a context for

building cultural and linguistic bridges for both parents and teachers

in order for real communication to occur. Research clearly

demonstrates that students and parents who come from culturally

different backgrounds to the mainstream need practices and systems

that are culturally relevant and valued by all (Nieto, 1999; Ladston-

Billings, 1995; Harris and Goodall, 2007).

Being aware of these differences and the different ways families/

schools understand and communicate with each other is important.

Schools are increasingly charged with recognising these differences

and planning for them accordingly. For example, in Charting our

Educational Future (Ireland, 1995) all schools are expected to develop

a home school policy statement. In addition, the introduction of the

Home School Community Liaison (HSCL) programme in 1990

especially recognized the challenges that schools with large numbers

of students from low socio-economic backgrounds faced (Ryan,

1994; Conaty, 2002).

Power and Clark (2000) identify the need for teachers to develop an

extended professionalism that recognizes the limits as well as the

strengths of teacher knowledge. They recommend as a starting point

the assumption that all parents are interested in their children’s

progress and that non-involvement does not necessarily mean a lack

of interest. This would require the school in its communication


43

practices becomes aware of differences in culture class and ability also.

Griffith, Norwich & Burden (2004) call for schools to review all

school practices including reporting practices from the perspectives

of parents. Schools need to be alert to the kind of information that

they communicate to parents and sensitive to the emotional and

non-cognitive concerns of parents, particularly when sensitive matters

such as the child’s special educational needs or behaviour problems

are being discussed. Flexibility and adaptability are essential. This idea

of an extended professionalism envisages a situation where teachers

are aware of the delicacy that needs to occur in communicating to

parents and creating a dialogue where all channels are kept open.

There are implications also at school level. O’Donoghue and

Dimmock (2002) have put forward four propositions in this regard,

which were developed out of a study on school reporting to parents

in Western Australia. These provide a helpful set of reference points in

that they address key aspects of reporting at the level of the school as

a system, that is, leadership, learning, school communication and

professional development. The four propositions are as follows (pp.

176-178):

1. Improvements in reporting are unlikely unless they are seen

within a managerial context. There may be a misconception that

reporting is essentially a teacher-parent problem when, in fact, it

is a whole-school issue with significant managerial and

organisational implications.

2. School reporting should involve parents, students and teachers in

assessing, discussing and setting future learning goals.

3. School reporting should be flexible with regard to the time

during the school year when the written reports are completed

and should contain much more information than is currently the

case.


44

4. Amongst the traditionally neglected reporting skills in which

teachers need special preparation are those associated with oral

reporting to parents, with the use of computer technology, and

with helping pupils to make sense of their reports.

Sharing information with parents thus requires not only a common

vocabulary but a common understanding. In the rapidly changing

social and cultural context that exists in Ireland in 2007, schools in

many areas are meeting new challenges in communicating with

parents whose home language and background are different from

those of the majority, as well as with those parents who for physical,

socioeconomic, cultural or other reasons have difficulty in accessing

information as it is currently presented to them. Effective reporting

practices are an important part of establishing and supporting the

partnership between school and home which is vitally important for

children’s learning.


45

c h a p t E r t w o

r E S E a r c h

m E t h o d o l o g y


46

2.1rESEarchQuEStionS

The aim of this research project was to explore existing policy and

practice on reporting to parents in Irish primary schools to identify

issues of concern to teachers, parents and children, and to make

recommendations which might assist the NCCA in its work of

advising the Minister for Education and Science on supporting

assessment policy and practice. As detailed in the next section, a

mixture of qualitative (case studies, individual and focus group

interviews, collection of relevant school documents) and quantitative

methods (on-line survey) were used to investigate school’s practices

and to gather the views of teachers, principals, parents, and children

about them. Factual information on schools’ existing policies and

practices of reporting were gathered by means of the survey and in

the course of visits to the six case study schools. Individual and focus

group interviews as well as the comments and responses to the open-

ended questions included at the end of the survey illuminated some

of the attitudes and reasons underlying these existing policies and

practices. The following table shows how the different elements of

the study addressed the sub-questions included within the overall

research brief.


47

Table 2.1 Research questions and methods

Research Questions Research Methods

1. School policy on reporting a) Do schools have a policy on reporting assessment information? What does the policy contain? b) What considerations informed the development/ monitoring/review of the policy?

Survey sections 3&4 (Current recording, communicating and reporting practices) Case studies: interviews with principals Case studies: individual and focus group interviews with teachers Survey sections 2 (General information on school) and open-ended comments in Survey section 7: Successes, challenges and future priorities

2. School practice on reporting: Report Cards a) When do schools report to parents? b) Are reports written/printed or delivered verbally? c) What are the typical contents of the report? d) How is children’s learning represented on the report? e) What differences are there in reporting: • At the different levels of the school? • For children with special needs? • For children who don’t have English or Irish as a first language?

Survey sections 3 ,4 Case studies: interviews with principals, teachers Survey sections 3, 4, 7 Case studies: interviews with principals, teachers, parents

3. School practice on reporting: Meetings a) Practical/logistical arrangements for parent-teacher meetings b) How reports are used at these meetings c) The kinds of input children or parents have in the report

Survey sections 4, 5, 7 Case studies: interviews with teachers, parents, children

4. Outcomes and effects of reportingHow the reporting process could be improved for all (children teachers, parents, principals)

Survey sections 5, 6 (Impact on learning), 7. Case studies: interviews with parents, teachers, children.


48

2.2rESEarchmEthodology

In order to address these questions, and in particular to identify ways

in which the reporting process could be improved, it was necessary

to explore the wider context in which reporting occurs. This

includes the role of reporting in relation to the accountability of

schools to parents, and the part it plays in the partnership between

parents and schools in promoting children’s learning and

development. A mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods was

used to conduct an empirical investigation of the ways in which

schools communicate with parents about their children’s progress. It

sought to document the views and experiences of the various

interest groups – principals, parents, teachers and pupils. This mixture

of quantitative and qualitative elements was chosen as most likely to

give meaningful and valid insights into the topic under investigation.

The qualitative case studies undertaken in six schools of varying sizes

and demographic backgrounds generated rich data, from which a

number of themes emerged. Initially, case studies were conducted in

five schools; this took place in May/June 2007. Following feedback

from the NCCA to an interim report, a sixth case study school was

added. This school was chosen because of its high incidence of

diverse learners, most of whom do not have English as a first

language and very many of whom are at an elementary stage in their

learning of English. In addition many of their parents do not speak

English or have very little English and so it is important to provide

evidence of their experiences and perspectives of the reporting

process as well as further detail of how schools respond to the

reporting needs of these new learners and their parents. Chapter

Three presents the findings from the case studies.

The second major element of the study was an on-line survey of a

stratified random sample of 412 of the 3292 primary schools in

Ireland, conducted in October/November 2007. This survey is


49

introduced in more detail in section 2.2.2 below, and Chapter Four

presents the results of the survey.

2.2.1 Case Studies: Data Collection, Data Analysis, Ethics

For the qualitative element of the study, case study methodology was

chosen as it was deemed the most appropriate means of addressing

the research focus. The need to obtain the perspectives of diverse

groups on several aspects of the reporting process meant that a

flexible methodology involving opportunity to capture individual

views and extended responses was necessary. It was agreed that case

study would provide the necessary flexibility and would allow us to

probe pre-determined issues as outlined in our research questions but

in addition would enable other issues relevant to participants to

emerge (Yin, 1993). A semi-structured approach to data gathering

was deemed highly appropriate.

It was also expected that the choice of case study methodology

would enable us ‘get beneath the surface of policy implementation’

to illuminate the lived realities of complex educational situations

(Simons, 1996, p. 231). In addition, multiple sources of data were

intended to overcome the weaknesses of attending only to the views

of one group, say teachers. We sought to give insights into different

participants’ interpretations and experiences of the reporting process.

Semi-structured, audio-recorded group and individual interviews and

documents together with the administration of a questionnaire to a

national sample (see below) provided a means of enhancing the

reliability and validity of the emerging findings.

The case study methodology adopted involved the design, piloting

and administration of interview schedules (Appendix 1) to establish

the perspectives of all of the following: principals, teachers (including

learning support teachers), parents, and pupils. Six schools were


50

selected to participate in this phase of the work on the basis that they

represented various types of school setting: disadvantaged urban,

single sex (boys), all-Irish, small rural, mixed/mostly middle class, and

a multi-denominational school incorporating a significant ethnic

minority proportion. A brief profile of each participating school

follows while Tables 2.1 and 2.2 summarise key details of each school

and case study participants.

School A is a medium sized urban school with disadvantaged status

with approximately 200 students. It has 12 mainstream teachers, a

HSCL teacher, four learning support (LS) teachers, behavioural

support teacher and an early start teacher. It has a large minority of

Traveller parents. The principal, four teachers a LS teacher, a Junior

Infant teacher, the HSCL teacher and a fourth class teacher) and four

parents including a Traveller parent with six children, and three other

parents who have had 12 children in school participated in the case

study. A focus group was conducted with four children from fifth and

sixth classes. The Principal is female and has been teaching for over

20 years. Most of the teachers have been in the school for the past

15-20 years.

School B is a large urban school with disadvantaged status. It has

approximately 450 students, 20 mainstream teachers and 16 support/

special teachers, including a HSCL teacher. It has a large minority of

Traveller students (about 70) and one third of the students were

either born outside of Ireland or their parents have recently

immigrated to Ireland. The focus group with six children from fourth

and fifth class was undertaken in June 2007 (6th class students were

on a school tour the day of the school case study). The principal is

male and has approximately 35+ years teaching (25+ as principal). A

small number of teachers have been in the school for the past 15-20

years and the staff has a significant number of recently qualified

teachers (i.e. in the last 1-5 years).


51

School C is a large urban boys’ school located in a provincial town.

It serves families who come from a mix of local authority and private

housing. It has over 470 pupils. It has 18 mainstream class teachers, a

HSCL teacher, two learning support teachers, and a resource teacher

who also supports the small minority of children who come from

the Traveller community. The principal, six teachers, a LS teacher, a

Junior Infant teacher, the HSCL teacher, second, fifth and sixth class

teachers and six parents participated in the case study. A focus group

was conducted with 18 children from fifth and sixth classes. The

principal, who is male, has approximately 10 years experience in the

role and over ten years experience as a class teacher. Most of the

teachers have been in the school for the past 15-20 years.

School D is a two-teacher rural school, situated in the countryside

in a small village and is about 20 miles from the nearest town. It has

an enrolment of approximately 50 pupils who all live in the village

or surrounding area. Pupils come mainly from a farming background.

There are no newcomer children attending the school. The pupils are

divided into two classes: junior infants up to second class and third

class to sixth class. The school principal teaches the older pupils and

the second teacher teaches the younger pupils. The school shares a

learning resource teacher with one other school and this teacher

works in the school on a daily basis. A focus group was conducted

with six children, drawn from fifth and sixth class. The principal, the

second teacher and the learning resource teacher were all

interviewed separately, because of logistical difficulties in such a small

school.

School E is a Gaelscoil located in a medium-sized town. It has

approximately 240 pupils. It has been in existence for 12 years but is

located in prefabricated classrooms while awaiting a new school

building. The pupils come mainly from the town and surrounding

area, so there is a mixture of children from urban and rural


52

backgrounds. The staff comprises 12 mainstream teachers and four LS

teachers. There are a small number of newcomer children in the

school. The principal is female, with 20 + years experience. The

pupils’ focus group consisted of six children drawn from fifth and

sixth class.

School F is a medium sized multi-denominational (Educate

Together) urban school with a diverse student body typical of schools

serving the increasing ethnic mix in Irish society. It has an enrolment

of approximately 380 pupils, and a staff of 35. This includes 21

teachers (including LS teachers) and eight Special Needs Assistants

(SNAs). The school is located in an area that has experienced rapid

local population growth as evidenced by one of the highest increases

in intercensal population over the last decade of anywhere in the

country. Over one half of the students were either born outside of

Ireland or their parents have recently immigrated to Ireland. Over 40

different nationalities and at least 12 different religions are

represented among the pupils. The school was set up only six years

ago, but many of the teachers have long experience of working in

other schools.


53

Table 2.2: Summary Profiles of Case Study Schools

School School Type/Setting

Pupils/ Catchment Principal Teachers

A Urban Mixed (i.e. boys and girls) to Ist Class Boys only from 2nd to 6th class

200 Largely local authority housing

Female: 10 years in role

19 teachers 1HSCL; 4 Learning Support, 1 language teacher; 1 Early start

B Urban Mixed (i.e. boys and girls) to Ist Class Boys only from 2nd to 6th class

450 pupils. About one-third are newcomers, and 70 are Travellers.

Male: 25 years as principal

20 class teachers, 16 support/special teachers, including HSCL teacher

C Boy School Urban setting Number dropping yearly

450 pupils. About one-third are newcomers, and 70 are Travellers.

Male; 10 years in role of Principal

18 class teachers; 1 home-school liaison; 2 learning support; 1 resource; 1 Travel.

D Mixed School – rural setting

50 pupils in 2006/7 – pupils come mainly from a farming background

Male; 38 years experience

One other classroom teacher - a female teacher and one (male) resource teacher (SEN) shared with one other school

E Gaelscoil, mixed, urban

240 pupils, Mixture of urban and rural

Female, 20 years experience

12 class teachers, 4 learning support

F Educate Together multi-denominational mixed school. Urban setting

380 pupils. Mixture of local authority and private housing. Over 50% newcomer children

Male Staff of 35, including 21 teachers (including learning support teachers) and 8 Special Needs Assistants


54

Table 2.3: Case Study Data Collection8

School Interview with Principal

Focus Group Interview with Teach-ers

Interview with Teachers (Individual)

Focus Group Interview with Parents

Focus Group Interview with Pupils

Reflection Sheets (Pupils)

Reflection sheets (Teachers)

Documents

A Yes Yes, 4 Teachers in total; 1 Learning support, 1 HSCL, 1 J.I. and 1 4th class

No Yes, 4 parents, including 1 Traveller; Selected by school and HSCL teacher

Yes, 4 stu-dents drawn from 5th and 6th class.

4 4 Sample report; No school policy on reporting.

B Yes Yes Yes Yes, 6 pupils, from 4th and 5th class.

6

C Yes 6 from a cross section of classes including infants & 6th

N/A 6 parents selected by the school

18 pupils (all boys) drawn from 5th and 6th classes

18 5 2 Sample Reports; School Policy on Reporting

D Yes No Interview with class teacher and resource teacher

4 parents selected by the school

6 pupils; 3 from 5th and 3 from 6th class

6 Not col-lected

4 reports of a single pupil over the course of 4 years from JnInf- 2nd class; 2 reports (different template) for 3rd and 4th class pupils; one report of a 6th class pupil; en-rolment form; school newsletter

E Yes Yes No No 6 pupils 6

F Yes Yes No 4 parents 8 pupils, from 5th and 6th class

8

8 This focus group was larger than the others. It comprised a whole class group, at the request of the school.


55

Focus group interviews were carried out with parents, teachers and

children in these case study schools and all principals were

interviewed. Some one-to-one interviews were carried out with

teachers. A semi-structured format was used for these interviews- see

Appendix 1. In addition, documentary evidence in the form of

sample reports and policies were collected (see Appendix 2). To

initiate discussion within the focus groups, mini questionnaires/

reflection sheets were distributed to participants to complete (see

Appendix 1). This occurred in the case of teachers and pupils.

Fieldwork was carried out and completed in June 2007 in five of the

six schools and completed in the final school in November 2007.

Table 2.3 summarises the data collection process.

The analytic process took the following format. Interviews were

audio-recorded and later transcribed in full. Analysis consisted of the

team individually and collectively reading and annotating transcript

data and identifying and agreeing (tentatively) the key themes

emerging from the evidence. We categorized data into broad analytic

themes, based on the research questions and recurring themes in the

evidence. The various data bases were scrutinized for extracts that

conform to and contradict analytic themes (Miles and Huberman,

1994) while a ‘constant comparisons’ approach (Silverman, 2000) was

applied to further refine the research findings. The involvement of

several researchers in a team (as opposed to just one researcher)

particularly facilitated this analytic approach. The data collected

provides grounded evidence for the identification of robust findings

by revealing important aspects of people’s experiences of school

reporting.

The research team adhered to ethical principles of confidentiality and

anonymity as well as consent as they accessed schools and

participants, and carried out the fieldwork. The notion of consent as

ongoing (Simons and Usher, 2000) informed our approach. This


56

means that, although access was granted and participants agreed to

cooperate with the study, we understood consent to allow

participants withdraw at any time or to not answer specific questions

if they so wished. All participants were informed of the purpose,

nature and approach of the study.

In the event it is our judgement that the study brought benefits to

those who participated in the case studies. The focus group

interviews gave parents the opportunity to talk about their

experience of the reporting process and gain greater understanding

of the views of other parents. Interviews with teachers gave

opportunities to reflect upon their practice and gain insights into

each other’s views. Similarly, focus group interviews with children

provided the opportunity to reflect together on their meanings of

reports on their learning and to reflect on the views of their peers.

All participating schools will receive a summary report of the

findings.

2.2.2 Questionnaire Survey: Design, Administration, Data Analysis

The second element of the study consists of an on-line questionnaire

survey to document practices in a way that more faithfully represents

practice nation-wide.

The on-line national survey of a stratified random sample of 412 of

the 3292 primary schools in Ireland was conducted in October/

November 2007. The sample of schools in the survey was selected

from the most up-date list of primary schools available from the

Department of Education and Science (DES). The complete list was

first sorted by category. Three categories were used in stratification:

DEIS9 status (Urban band 1; Urban band 2, Rural, and Not in DEIS),

9 DEIS (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools) is an action plan introduced by the Department of Education and Science in 2005 under which schools with high levels of children at risk of educational disadvantage receive additional supports.


57

gender mix of school (boys, girls, mixed, both boys and girls in

infants and girls only from first to sixth class) and school size (<150;

150-300; and >300). One school in every eight was then randomly

chosen from the stratified list.

The survey (see Appendix 3) included questions on schools’ policies

and practices in relation to reporting to parents, as well as

background information on the schools themselves to allow this

information to be cross-tabulated for sample validation and analysis.

The survey comprised a range of items including Likert scale items,

Yes/No items and open-ended questions. Based on the research

questions outlined in Table 2.1, items were developed that addressed

school reporting policies, report cards, parent teacher meetings. The

survey was informed by issues that arose in the case study portion of

the research (e.g. communication challenges resulting from increased

linguistic diversity; prominence of informal reporting practices). The

draft survey was piloted on a group of principals from different

school types, sizes and disadvantage status. A small number of

revisions were made to the survey at this point. Furthermore, two

education researchers (one from Ireland and one from the USA) with

expertise in school-home communication reviewed the survey items.

Due to the fact that the Economic and Social Research Institute

(ESRI) was undertaking a survey of schools from mid-September to

mid-October, the research team decided to wait until that survey

data collection period was over prior to undertaking the reporting

study survey from mid-October to early December 2007.

In mid-October 2007, because the DES list does not include email

addresses for schools, we contacted the principal in each school

selected by phone to tell them about the survey and to ask for a

contact email address. If after numerous attempts a school principal

could not be contacted by phone, the next school from the same

category on the list was substituted. The schools in the sample were


58

then sent an email (see Appendix 3), repeating and expanding on the

information given over the phone. The email outlined the policy

context of the survey and noted that the Irish Primary Principals

Network (IPPN) was encouraging principals to complete the survey.

It gave a web link to the on-line survey and provided an email

contact and phone number if any difficulties arose in survey

completion.

We applied a number of strategies to encourage our selected sample

of schools to complete and return the survey. Initial phone calls were

made to the selected schools to elicit their support in cooperating

with the survey and to advise them of the importance of

participating. Over the course of a six week period between the end

of November and mid-December schools in the intended sample

were emailed five times. Where email queries were addressed to the

survey team these were answered in so far as was possible. A small

number of schools (12) indicated that they had difficulties with

access to email but that they would still like to participate. A paper

copy of the survey was generated and sent to these schools, and the

data was filled in on-line for them by the research team when the

hard copies were returned.

Non-respondents were targeted with further emails and in some

cases phone calls. The literature (e.g. Sheehan and McMillan, 1999;

Hewson, 2003) reports widely differing responses to surveys of this

type, depending on various factors including familiarity with the

internet, preparatory and follow-up contact, and the perceived

importance/relevance of the topic to those targeted. The overall

response rate achieved in this case was moderate, at 45% (187

schools). This may have been influenced by the fact that other

surveys were being conducted around the same time. Another

element may have been unfamiliarity with on-line surveys as a

format; at least two schools printed it out from the screen and


59

returned a paper copy filled in by hand. Some schools also reported

difficulties with opening the survey on-line; we were able to resolve

this for those who contacted us but others may not have persevered

past the initial difficulty.

The website used to host the survey (www.surveymonkey.com) is

commonly used by researchers in the social and behavioural sciences.

It has a number of advantages, not least that it allows responses to be

exported and analyzed using SPSS software, which again is the

standard package for research of this type. The survey provided

quantitative data on reporting practices in a wider selection of

schools than could be included in the case studies. The open-ended

questions and space for comments added a qualitative element, since

they gave respondents an opportunity to give their views on the

process of reporting and the uses to which it is put in schools and at

home. This enabled the research team to further contextualise the

findings from the case studies.

In presenting the survey findings we also discuss these in terms of

O’Donoghue and Dimmock’s (2002) four propositions, as detailed in

Chapter One, section 1.4. The results from the on-line survey are

presented in detail in Chapter Four.


60


61

c h a p t E r t h r E E

p o l i c i E S , p r a c t i c E S

a n d o u t c o m E S : a n a l y S i S

o F c a S E S t u d y d a t a


62

3.1introduction

The qualitative case studies yielded a large amount of rich data that

shed light on various aspects of the reporting process. Structured to

address the research brief, this chapter has two main components.

The first part presents an account of school policy and practice on

reporting to parents as well as teacher and principal explanations for

their reporting arrangements. This is an essential prerequisite to the

second part which offers an analysis of how parents and learners

experience the reporting process. By attending to parental and pupil

experiences, meanings, and interpretations, the second part of the

chapter provides insights into outcomes of the reporting policies and

practices enacted by schools. Foregrounded in each part are the

formal and informal mechanisms that schools use to communicate

with parents about individual children’s progress: annual school

reports and parent-teacher meetings.

3.2policyandpracticE:rEportingmEchaniSmS

In all the case study schools a school report based on a standard

template is sent to parents at the end of the school year. This report is

designed to offer a summary statement of pupil learning, typically

involving a rating from one of the following: ‘excellent’ ‘very good’,

‘good’, ‘fair’ for each subject of the curriculum and in relation to

social development, homework, attendance, and attitude to school.

In addition, formal annual parent-teacher meetings are held towards

the end of the first term or the beginning of the second term each

year and all our interviews suggest that these are conducted in line

with DES guidelines. One of our case study schools holds this

meeting in the third term although this practice was being

reconsidered by the school at the time of our fieldwork. Other ways

of reporting on pupil learning are also used by schools. We elaborate

on all these practices below as we focus on how schools compare and

contrast in their reporting arrangements.


63

Further subsections here present information on the use of

standardised tests and homework as reporting mechanisms, and the

arrangement for dealing with linguistic diversity, while the final

subsection highlights policy and practice in relation to parental access

to schools.

3.2.1 The School Report: Format, Content and Construction

The evidence presented in this section demonstrates that there is

conformity (mainly) across schools in the practice of preparing and

dispatching school reports to parents. It also highlights some of the

challenges of report production and how schools cope with them.

Two themes emerge from our analysis. One is the relatively high

level of professional attention to the accounts of learning of pupils

with special educational needs. Another is ‘protectionism’ whereby

schools seek to protect children, parents and indeed themselves from

the potential effects of negative accounts of pupil progress.

Appendix 2 shows sample anonymised versions of typical school

reports made available by our case study schools. These are examples

of commercially produced standard formats that come in booklets,

with carbon copies of the report held by the school for each year the

child is in attendance, thus building up a child’s school career history.

They are kept by the school for several years after the child leaves.

The school report is viewed as a summative report of a child’s

learning. Distributed to parents at the end of the school year, it is

assumed to look back and summarise what has been achieved rather

than to look forward and identify how to make progress in the

future. It is retrospective rather than prospective. Common practice

across schools is for teachers to draw on their own observations,

notes and formal and informal/class tests that they will have

accumulated and administered over the year when compiling school


64

reports. The following class teacher response is typical of our teacher

responses:

I would keep a notebook with a page for each child. At the

beginning of September I would write my observations … and

as time goes on, every couple of weeks, writing another

comment or two and I keep that as an informal record …. In

first and second class they’d be getting little tests all along.

They have a record of their work, what I call a test copy… We

have the Micra T and the Sigma T then just before we would

make the reports (Class teacher, School D)

Although they claim to be mindful of standardised assessment results

as they compile reports our evidence shows that schools do not

report the actual results of such tests in these communications to

parents. (We return to this issue again later in the chapter).

Practice on constructing the school report seems to vary somewhat

across schools in the case of children with special educational needs.

In most cases the report is cowritten by the class teacher and the

learning support teacher, based on their respective experiences with

the child. The class teacher usually writes the report with the help of

the information, profiling and observations that have been carried

out by the learning support teacher. In School C, on the other hand,

it is usually the LS teacher who fills out the report for the children

who attend the special classes but both collaborate about its content.

In School D, a small rural school, practice is atypical insofar as the

LS/resource teacher also writes a letter to parents at the end of the

year identifying activities that parents could do with children over

the summer holidays.

It is important to highlight at this point the greater professional

attention to describing the learning of children who experience

learning difficulties. At least two teachers collaborate about the


65

account which draws on perspectives pertaining to different learning

contexts thus potentially enhancing the validity and the reliability of

what it says to parents about their child.

Throughout the interview evidence there were references to how

schools balance positive and negative commentary and, in

disadvantaged settings in particular, teachers frequently noted how

they have to be mindful of the likelihood that parents themselves

may have had a negative experience of school. Especially of note in

the interviews with the principals was the need for teachers to be

realistic about achievement, motivation and behaviour. The following

is typical of the responses:

One piece of advice I always give to younger teachers is to be

as positive as you can, but to tell it like it is. Because no

parent will ever thank you for covering up for a child. I mean

they can legitimately say, the following year, well, I could have

sorted this out if I’d known about it. (Principal, School B)

Less typical in the data was this Principal’s addition that while young

teachers are sometimes afraid of parent-teacher meetings, the parent is twice as

nervous. This reveals a view of parents that, as we shall demonstrate, is

not entirely supported by the parental evidence. The Principal of

another disadvantaged school was equally concerned that teachers

should be honest but diplomatic in their report writing and that the

annual school reports should display consistency, in both the best

interests of parents and their own colleagues. The rationale offered by

principals revealed an assumption that school reports should not

contain ‘surprises’ for parents. The following quotation from a

Principal show how the content of a school report is assumed to

have the power to engage the support of parents or to alienate them:

Well, I bring it up every year; we discussed it at the last

planning meeting day too, about the written reports. It’s very


66

important that you be truthful about what you write. I mean

it’s soul destroying for a teacher, you know, the following year,

to meet a parent and hear “Mrs. So and So never told me

this” or “Mrs. So and So told me he was the best boy in town

and look this is his report”. You know you can’t do that. If a

child has issues the parent must be informed of the issues, but

there are ways of being diplomatic about informing parents.

And I think it’s important to do that, because in an area like

this parents have had very negative experiences of schooling

themselves. We want an intergenerational move towards more

acceptance of school and more belonging. If we start

antagonising parents, you know, they’re going to get their back

up and we lose the good will. We have very good will with

them at the moment and we work very well together, and every

side has to compromise and try to do their best with the child

at heart, you know? (Principal, School A)

It may be that teachers/schools in their bid to keep certain parents

on board or to ensure that parents feel accepted and ‘belong,’ filter

information that they decide might be negatively received by parents

(‘antagonize’) and thus perceive they are protecting parents. However,

these decisions/meanings are not necessarily negotiated with parents

and may lead to a blandness in reporting practices that provides

insufficient detail for parents to act on – a point we will address in

the second part of the chapter. Protecting the child and protecting

the parent may inter alia mean protecting the school.

However, teachers reported that they sometimes apply a more direct

approach, judging that some parents take more notice of the school

report than what might be said in a parent-teacher meeting, once

again revealing the assumed power of the written report:


67

Teacher 1: Sometimes you feel that in the informality of the

meeting, they are not really addressing things, and that the

thing that matters is what is said in the end of year report. …

Teacher 2: That’s right, it carries enormous weight. I

remember a parent in a state because it had gone down in

writing. It did make her sit up the following year. (Teachers,

School F)

Again, principals were more conscious than teachers of obtaining

consistency within the report of a single child as he or she progresses

through the school and encounters different teachers. They were

aware of how teacher competence mediates pupil progress and

therefore how what can be reported about a child’s learning is bound

up with the actual class teacher who is charged with constructing the

report:

Because you have a different teacher writing a report every

year and some of them vary…any judgement a teacher makes

for instance, on behaviour, is influenced by his or her

expectations of the child. So that has to be taken into account

as well…One teacher who says a child is very well behaved, it

may be because she has very good classroom management

skills. Another teacher who says the child is not well behaved,

it may be for different reasons. They are very often the things

that parents are more interested in as well especially if the

child may be having some difficulties in school. For some

parents, whether a child is achieving very well in Irish is not

top of their priority. But they will pick up on things like

behaviour or attitude to school. (Principal, School C)

In an attempt to address the challenges posed by obtaining

consistency and validity in reports of learners’ progress as well as to

use reports to support pupil learning, one school (School A) has set


68

up a system where there is a designated day for teachers to study

them. This policy decision was informed by the fact that teachers

were not accessing their colleagues’ reports to inform their teaching

and planning or their construction of their own reports. As this

school is designated disadvantaged, it has access to resource and

support personnel who substitute for teachers while they engage in

this learning process. The conversations about improving

communication between teachers and parents at staff meetings led to

this decision and more importantly to a valuing of the practice. One

teacher in the school described how in writing his own reports he

used previous reports as a backdrop. As a teacher of a senior class he

found it very useful to see a child’s progress through the school. He

also noted and appreciated the level of detail and information

provided in them Not only did he learn about children’s progress he

also learned more about his colleagues’ work through the inevitable

discussion that such designated time allows. All teachers in the focus

group found this structure of freeing them up helpful. It is a good

example of how schools may need to create additional structures in

order for new professional practices and communications to develop.

Although all schools have a report booklet and teachers are free to

access them, it appears that most teachers do not actually refer to

them. Another exception is School F, where teachers report that they

regularly consult the reports that are filed in the school office.

Teachers too were wary of ‘putting things in writing’. As one said,

we’re quite cautious about anything you write down to protect ourselves

(Teacher, School B). Teacher fear of litigation and their reluctance to

commit too much in writing about their pupils are consistent with

our emerging theme of protectionism. Teachers were keen to

emphasise how labels can damage children and how they are careful

about the language they use. One principal asks for greater clarity

regarding what pupil information should be kept and what precisely


69

constituted a ‘report’ and a ‘record’. Again fear of litigation would

appear to underlie these concerns:

There’s just a lack of clarity I think at the moment. And when

individual requests come in, and they don’t come in very often,

we just have to check each time then ….The Friday Spelling

test – those are records as opposed to reports. And they would

help a teacher in writing their annual reports and also help

giving the oral report in parent teacher meetings. But the status

they would have in regards, if somebody came looking for all

their reports and records, that’s unclear (Principal, School C).

The Freedom of Information Act was mentioned several times in our

interviews with teachers and principals although in fact it does not

apply to schools at all. Under the Data Protection Act, however,

parents do have the right to see any personal data relating to their

children. They also have the right to all assessment information about

their children in an intelligible form. Detailed guidance on this along

with other aspects of assessment and reporting is detailed in the

NCCA’s recent publication for schools (NCCA, 2007, p. 95).

While all respondents were aware of litigation issues, teachers also

expressed something of the professional struggle over the wording,

seeking to faithfully represent pupils’ approach and achievements.

One teaching principal exemplified how he deliberated about how

he describes pupils, bearing in mind how parents share the report

with their children:

I’d say there is a lot of discussion when the children go home.

That’s where you would want to be careful too, that you don’t

let a child down. But you still have to be fair. You know, I can

remember writing a sentence about one child, ‘it is about time

that Joe realised that charm is not an excuse for hard work.’

And then I revised it, ‘no, that’s too hard, that’s too hard’.


70

And you go back sometimes and you say, you are inclined

sometimes to hit, but it’s not an opportunity to get your own

back. You know, it’s an opportunity to evaluate and see what

you can do. But you do, I always feel fierce guilt writing

reports, because I say, ‘I should have done better’, not the child

should have done better. (Principal, School D)

In similar vein another principal reflected on the potential enduring

consequences for individual children’s lives of overly negative

comments:

I think these days teachers have to be very careful in what

they write about the children, it’s held against them for life

really. I would always tell the teachers, if you have something

terrible to say, make sure you bring the parents up in advance

and say look, I am going to write this, but really I am trying,

this is why I am doing it. But I would not be in favour of

teachers writing very derogatory comments, I wouldn’t allow

that, because these children have a difficult enough life out

there, it’s not fair on them. This could be held against them.

(Principal, School A)

The evidence presented in this section about the practices of schools

as they construct annual reports of individual pupil learning attests to

the perceived power of reports to impact on parents and children and

to impact on schools themselves. It may be that the format of the

typical report which requires teaches to summarise achievement

through a tick and a very brief phrase colludes in pushing towards a

protectionism that may not benefit all parties in the educational

enterprise. Absent inevitably from such accounts will be more direct

evidence of achievement and indications of progress over the year.

The NCCA’s Report Card Templates (still in draft form) go some

way towards supporting a more detailed and specific account of a

child’s learning (NCCA, 2007)


71

The next section presents insights into policy and practice on the

annual parent-teacher meeting.

3.2.2 The Annual Parent-Teacher Meeting: Format and Timing

The parent-teacher meeting has the potential to offer both a

summative and formative account of children as learners. On the one

hand teachers claim to summarise a child’s progress while, on the

other hand, they say that they highlight aspects that need attention in

these meetings, identifying ways in which parents can support their

child’s learning at home. Thus, assessment of and for learning can be

addressed. As above, the notion of the enhanced validity of reports

about pupils with special educational needs is sustained. Further

themes are accessibility of meetings for parents and assumptions of

one-way communication underlying reporting practice.

Four of our case study schools have one formal parent-teacher

meeting annually in November. One school, a small two-teacher

rural school, offers this annual event in the summer term after

parents receive the school report. Yet another holds its parent-teacher

meetings in February. November is popular with schools because this

is a time when teachers have acquired a good understanding of their

pupils as learners and they are assumed to be in a position to offer

informed judgements about their curricular strengths and weaknesses,

as well as aspects like commitment, enthusiasm and general

behaviour. This timing allows parents to act on the information

during the remainder of the school year.

The general pattern described by our research participants for these

meetings conforms to DES guidelines. In four of our case study

schools parents are allocated a time slot of about 10-15 minutes on a

particular day during which they would meet with the class teacher

to discuss their child’s progress. The multi-denominational school F,


72

however, differed from the norm. Here parent-teacher meetings are

held in the early morning (beginning from 7.30 a.m.) as well as in

the afternoon over a period of several weeks, with teachers seeing

only two or three parents per day. Parents are offered a choice of

times, to allow both parents to attend. Not surprisingly, this is one of

the few schools that report a high level of attendance by fathers as

well as mothers. School E, a Gaelscoil, also offers parents the option

of an early morning meeting if this is the only time that suits them.

In one school the parent-teacher meeting follows soon after parents

receive the annual school report and the latter then forms a starting

point of the meeting in this school, with parents tending to take the

school report along to the meeting. In other respects the meeting in

this school is in line with those in the other schools in the study:

First of all really look at the report that has gone home, which

gives us a starting point and then I have my own little notes

written down. Anything extra that I want to say and I also

ask the parents if they have any concerns or anything they

want to discuss. With some parents, 5 minutes would do and

other parents would need longer, for one reason or another

because maybe they have more concerns about the child or

maybe they’re just more talkative, that they may take up more

time than that. We try and keep it around the 10 or 15

minutes. (Class teacher, School D)

Teachers in School E commented that the meeting helps to remind

them of what the children are expected to do at home and how to

help them. They also to help teachers to find out more about their

pupils. Several teachers mentioned that they show parents examples

of the children’s work in the parent-teacher meeting. As one said: It is

good for the parents to see something concrete (Teacher, School E).


73

In the case of children with special educational needs parents may

have two separate meetings with the class teacher and the resource

teacher. Our evidence shows that in the case of separate meetings,

colleagues share, discuss and moderate their judgements about the

child’s progress in advance. At least one school, however, has recently

adopted the practice of the resource teacher and class teacher

meeting the parent(s) together to ensure that parents obtain a more

coherent view of the child’s progress:

Now, in the last few years we’ve changed the system in the

sense that if a child is involved with the resource teacher, the

resource teacher sits in on that meeting as well. Because there

is no point in a parent going to one meeting and be told one

thing and then going down the corridor to be told something

different. (Principal, School A)

This is in line with our earlier claim of greater professional attention

being brought to bear on reporting on the progress of children with

special educational needs. It would be reasonable to expect that such

joint attention to describing the learning of these children would

enhance the trustworthiness for parents of what is reported and the

recommendations offered. How parents view this close attention and

monitoring will be of interest in the next main section of the

chapter.

In all except one school (School F) respondents noted that it is

mothers, rather than fathers, or mothers and fathers together, who

attend these meetings, despite both parents being invited, and in

some cases, actively encouraged to attend. Teachers in School F

schedule the parent-teachers meetings in the early morning as well as

the afternoon to allow both parents to attend if at all possible. It can

happen that parents have little or no English, or are not generally

available, so that the parent-teacher meeting is the only opportunity


74

to communicate with them. The school encourages both parents to

attend, particularly in view of the high number of newcomer

families, where there are different levels of fluency in English and

perhaps also different views of gender roles:

And I do always prefer both parents to be here. Especially with

the kids who come from other countries where, sometimes the

women’s views are as important as the dad views, so. And then

you’ll see the dad saying things like, you know, you never told

me. And I am thinking, I bet she did. So it is great that they

can hear it, straight from the teacher. And that there is no, the

mum trying to say it. You know, that this is what the teacher

says, because then you are addressing the head of the house

(Teacher, School F)

Children themselves do not accompany their parents to these

meetings although as we will show later some children expressed an

interest in attending them.

Our evidence points to the fact that the annual parent-teacher

meeting functions as a mechanism for passing on information to

parents and identifying ways in which they might support their

children as learners. It is mainly a one-way system of communication

from the teacher to the parent. This is represented in the next

quotation from a focus group interview with teachers in which they

seemed unanimous in the view that parents did not always appreciate

the function of the parent-teacher meeting:

I also think that parents have a misconception of what parent

teacher meetings are as well. I would find them as a form

where I am talking and I am saying where the areas, you

know, are good and the areas that need more improvement.

And they might bring up an issue of something that happened

in the yard two weeks ago. It’s not the place for it, like. They


75

need to make an appointment separately for that and come in.

Parent teacher meetings aren’t, for me, for that kind of thing…

(Class teacher, School C)

The annual parent-teacher meeting seems to be an event that is in

practice geared more to the transmission of assessment information

from teachers to parents than a discussion in which both parties

participate equally and negotiate ways forward for learners. This does

not mean of course that other opportunities are not afforded for

more interactive, two-way communication. Our evidence shows that

schools consider the parent-teacher meeting to be a special event

with a distinct purpose of telling parents about their child’s strengths

and weaknesses and of identifying ways in which they might support

the school’s work with their child. The very limited amount of time

allocated to each parent contributes to this perspective and practice.

3.2.3 Standardised Tests, Homework, Class Tests

What role do standardised assessments play in reporting practices? In

addressing this issue further information emerged about other

reporting mechanisms that schools use in communicating with

parents about children’s progress. This section analyses evidence on

these aspects. The main finding of significance here is the variation

across policy and practice even within schools. Such variation is to be

expected as, beyond the obligations set nationally that all schools

should compile a school report for each child and conduct a parent-

teacher meeting annually, schools are expected to decide how best to

report on pupil learning. From 2007 (DES Circular 0138/2006)

schools are also obliged to assess their pupils using standardised

assessments at least twice during a pupil’s time in primary school and

to report the results to parents.

Practice in our case study schools shows that teachers already

conform to the new requirements in relation to conducting


76

standardised testing insofar as they conduct such tests In the case of

pupils from first to sixth classes in the primary school, these

assessments are typically based on tests such as the Drumcondra

Primary Reading and Mathematics tests (Education Research Centre

2007) and the Micra-T and the Sigma-T (reading and mathematics

tests, Mary Immaculate College 2007) which are standardised and

norm-referenced as well as curriculum-related. However, reporting

practices of the results is not the same across schools. While schools

said they inform parents of assessments carried out during the school

year, typically around May, these results are sometimes communicated

to parents only when they request them and it seems that no school

forwards the actual scores of standardised tests to parents. Rather the

results are interpreted or made intelligible by teachers and then

communicated orally to them rather than including them on the

annual school report. Teachers claim to be mindful of test results

when compiling their report.

Pupils in some senior infant classes are assessed in basic reading and

mathematics skills using standardised tests (e.g. MIST) for diagnostic

or screening purposes, in order to identify children who need

learning support. These results are interpreted by teachers and

communicated to parents verbally, but again practice varies. In some

cases results are routinely given verbally at parent-teacher meetings,

in others they are available only if the parent asks to see them. Where

the test results signal that the child is having difficulties, this is likely

to trigger a request for a meeting with the parents and then results

and their implications are discussed.

Parents of children who undergo psychological assessments may have

several additional formal meetings with the school, specifically in

relation to giving consent for the conduct of assessments and in

relation to interpreting the results and their pedagogical implications

including the development and implementation of Individual


77

Education Plans (IEPs). Moreover, regular updates, written and oral,

are offered to parents of pupils who attend Resource, LS or Special

Classes. Schools also tend to request meetings with parents of pupils

who have behavioural difficulties and reports are sometimes prepared

to support these meetings. Here again, our evidence points to greater

levels of reporting in relation to children experiencing learning and/

or behavioural difficulties. There is also evidence of greater levels of

communication between parents and teachers about younger

children than about older children.

Formal reporting arrangements and practices in primary schools have

to be understood within a context of informal contact with parents

about their children’s learning and development. There are several

other practices which function as communications with parents

about their children’s learning in school and participants in the

research commented on these in the interviews we conducted.

Homework would appear to be a significant vehicle for on-going

communication with parents about pupil progress. The principal of

our small rural school described his approach to offering feedback to

his learners on their work:

Now another way too would be homework, that I would

correct and make comments on the homework And if I were

particularly pleased or angry with someone I would say ‘I need

daddy or mammy to sign that’. So that they have seen what it

is that I am particularly annoyed with or particularly pleased

with. Because you do praise as well as the other. So that’s

another way of reporting to parents. (Principal, School D)

A large disadvantaged school (School A) presents the reporting

process as an integrated one, as ongoing and evidence-based, and not

easily separated in the teachers’ practice from assessment and

recording. It also reveals the use of class tests as vehicles for


78

communicating progress. Here teachers explained how they send

home

class spelling test results and how parents are expected to sign

homework notebooks/sheets every week indicating that they have

seen them. Class mathematics tests occur every month and these

results too are sent home. This practice starts early in the child’s

schooling. This kind of ongoing communication is then part of the

evidence base that informs parent-teacher meetings in this school. In

School A, a homework sheet rather than a journal is sent home each

week to tell parents of children in infant classes what work the

children are doing:

In infants we give out a homework sheet at the start of the

week … And the rest is an A4 sheet, and the bottom then, we

always give a little note, like days coming up or that kind of

thing. And then we always might stick in, like we are doing

this rhyme this week or if you want to do it at home, or if we

started writing or we area doing this letter this week.

(Teacher, School A)

School E, a Gaelscoil, also uses leabhair notaí cumersáide or

‘communication journals’ to send messages to parents, a practice

more prevalent in the lower than in the upper end of the school.

Once again parents sign these communications regularly. Homework

notebooks or journals and ‘test copies’ that parents are required to

sign thus act not only as a communication channel from school to

home, but as a way for teachers to ensure that parents are checking

on homework. They may also have space for parents to add a

comment or a note to the teacher.

While test copies largely give feedback on academic progress,

journals may have comments on behaviour. Some schools also have

formal systems to promote ‘good behaviour’ which are shared with


79

parents. In School B, a large urban school, a star system designed to

promote good behaviour (e.g. coming to class on time, good

discipline) was in school-wide operation. It is based on extrinsic

motivation and behaviour modification through the accumulation of

a maximum of three ‘stars’ per day. Stars are recorded on the child’s

‘star booklet’ and is completed daily and made available to parents.

School F has a ‘Star of the Week’ award, presented at assembly to

children who have made a special effort or have been noticed doing

something special in class or in the yard. Because it is linked to

behaviour rather than academic achievement, it is open to all

children. The teacher (not necessarily the class teacher) sponsoring

the award tells the assembly why this child has got the award. One

parent described the moment that her child (who has special

educational needs) got the award as a very proud moment in a parent’s

life (Mother, School F).

In addition then to the annual school reports and parent-teacher

meetings, schools report to parents about their children’s ongoing

learning and participation in school through more informal

mechanisms particularly homework notebooks. These more informal

mechanisms have the potential to reveal something of the process of

children’s day-to-day learning, to indicate to parents the focus of

their children’s learning in school as well as their success in that

learning. Policy and practice in relation to the extent to which and

the format in which schools report the results of standardised tests

will likely display more convergence in the near future as the new

guidelines become disseminated and the DES requirement for

standardised testing is implemented by schools.

3.2.4 Dealing with Linguistic Diversity

Four of our schools were catering for at least some children whose

first language was not English and at three of these schools very

many parents had very little or no English, making for particular


80

challenges when it came to parent-teacher meetings. Schools had

devised a range of creative policies and practices for addressing the

obvious challenges, including, in particular, eliciting the support of

community members who could mediate between teachers and

parents. To illustrate, the Principal of School B described their access

to community members as assistants as translators for parent-teacher

meetings:

One of our Vietnamese helpers, Mr. X, he’s a retired

professional, who speaks Vietnamese and Chinese and he will

come sometimes to meet with the parents and he’ll interpret

and translate. … One of our language support teachers that

we took on is Polish, well she teaches English obviously, but

she is very, very useful with Polish parents. And also, she has

better than school Russian. So she can communicate with the

Latvian, Lithuanian and Russian families. …She was at a

parent teacher, infant meeting today, so she has been very

useful.

The focus group interview data from the teachers in this school and

in School F highlighted the scale of the challenges involved in

communicating with parents who don’t have sufficient English. In

the case of a parent in another school, it was only when someone

who could speak her own language came to work there that she was

able to express her anxieties about how her child was doing in the

school; previously the teacher admitted interpreting her lack of

interaction with the school as a lack of interest.

Teachers in School F have made a list of all the languages in which

different members of staff have some degree of competence, it

translates the main school notices and information into seven

languages, and is in the process of applying, together with a cluster of

other schools in the area, for funding for professional translators.


81

Currently they rely on teachers, other staff members and older

children to translate, but they are aware that this is not always possible

or appropriate. Even with translators teachers still find

communication difficult with some parents. Over 50% of the

children attending the school are newcomers, and some of their

parents have little or no English. Teachers here say that although they

make every effort to communicate, they are often not sure whether a

parent has understood what they say.

Even when teachers and parents apparently share a common

language, other difficulties may arise. Written reports are of little use

to a parent who does not read the language in which it is written,

though they may have reasonable oral fluency. They are even more

problematic for parents with literacy difficulties, who may not even

be able to read notes sent home by the school. Some of the schools

in the study had Traveller families where the parents themselves were

attending literacy classes and the teachers were aware of this and

were careful of the language they used in reports. Teachers in several

of the schools mentioned that they make an effort to communicate

orally when they are aware that parents have difficulty accessing

written information.

There is also the question of how far a shared understanding exists

between school and home, and how reports are interpreted. Teachers

in School B reported that they have to be careful in how they

mention issues of discipline to some parents, in case the parent

reacted by physically punishing the child. Different cultural norms in

respect of physical punishment and in the way adults and children

interact with one another were also mentioned in School F. Parents’

own experience has often been with a very different school system

and their understanding of the curriculum, the role of the school and

of the teacher has been shaped by this. Teachers in School F say that

they sometimes have to ‘sell’ outings or trips to parents as being


82

related to an academic subject such as English or History rather than

as contributing to the children’s social development, which they feel

is not seen by some parents as a legitimate or important part of the

work of the school.

3.2.5 ‘Open Door’ Access for Parents

The formal reporting mechanisms noted so far happen in the

context of informal sets of relationships between teachers and parents

that, according to school staff, involve very regular encounters and

opportunities for teachers and parents to talk about the children’s

lives and learning. Before progressing to an analysis of how learners

and parents experience the reporting process, it is important to

highlight how schools represent their policies and practices in

relation to parental access.

Nearly all interviews conducted with principals and with class

teachers included reference to the significance of regular contact on

an informal basis with parents, especially with parents of children in

Infant classes and children who attend learning support or special

classes. Our evidence points to the claim on the part of all 6 case

study schools that an ‘open door’ policy with regard to parents is in

operation. Staff members tend to present their schools as places that

are easily accessible to parents and they present themselves as people

who are in regular contact with them.

Typically teachers claim that they have access to parents as they drop

off children in the mornings and as they come to collect children at

the end of the school day and this offers an opportunity to liaise

with parents about issues arising on a day to day basis that concern

children’s learning and development in the broadest sense. One

principal of a large city school (School B) which was designated

‘disadvantaged’ noted: there’s informal contact with parents every day and

the parents and teachers talk freely practically every day. In School F, both


83

teachers and parents were in agreement that this regular informal

contact takes place with those parents who bring their children to

school themselves, although they pointed out that in many cases,

both parents work outside the home and children are brought or

collected by childminders.

Teachers in several schools mentioned the practical difficulties of

talking to parents during a normal school day; one respondent, a

teaching principal in a small school, gave as the greatest challenge in

reporting dealing with parents who arrive unannounced when you have a

class of over thirty pupils waiting to be taught. Practical difficulties such as

these certainly seem to influence what ‘open door’ means in different

schools.

In School A, a large urban school which is designated disadvantaged,

‘meeting in the corridor’ was frequently referred to by teachers as a

way of keeping in touch with parents and keeping children ‘on track’

especially with homework. The school has a HSCL coordinator, and

parents are often in the school for classes and other activities, so that

they meet teachers regularly. Teachers say that ‘there is an

approachable atmosphere in the school’, and they appreciate the

backup that the HSCL coordinator gives: If you have a problem getting

in touch with a parent or you find it difficult to get in touch, you can go to

the HSCL coordinator and she very often has an extra piece of information

or she knows the family personally.

Teachers typically felt that feedback to parents during the year was

more effective if it was oral rather than written, a view that made

them see frequent, informal face-to-face contacts with parents as

more relevant and obviously more immediate than say a written end-

of-year report. This applied both to communicating about issues of

behaviour and attendance and to making parents aware of the

importance of supporting children’s leaning at home, monitoring


84

homework and so on. Informal, oral communication is assumed to

help to ensure that messages are communicated accurately. Several

teachers also claimed that oral reporting is perceived by parents as less

threatening.

Informal contacts are also used in some schools to follow up on

parents who do not, for one reason or another, attend formal

meetings. Teachers in School A for instance report that this makes a

difference to attendance, especially in the case of traveller parents

whose attendance at meetings they monitor and encourage.

In School A day-to-day informal meetings and more formal end-of-

year reporting or the more formal annual parent-teacher meeting are

represented as integral elements of the working relations schools and

parents evolve over the primary school years:

In the Infants, if an issue arises, we would report it verbally to

the parent at the door because we meet them every day on a

daily basis and I believe if there is some issue that has arisen,

the parents should know immediately. In relation to the older

children, we find that parents don’t come to school as much as

they would do when their children were younger, so we would

report at the parent teacher meeting…or we would have class

meetings as well in September, where the class teacher would

meet the parent and outline maybe the do’s and don’ts of the

year. If there are any issues, they explain the procedures of how

to come up to the school and how to address those issues. ..But

we would have a fairly open door policy in relation to parents;

we want parents to communicate with us. We need parents as

much as they need us. And sometimes they give us very vital

pieces of information that could help us to help the child. So

they do come and they meet and we are very lucky to have a

home school liaison teacher as well who would facilitate an

awful lot of those meetings. (Principal, School A)


85

As well as the view that they are ‘open’ to parents, our evidence from

teacher and principal interviews signals the significance of two-way

communication between parents and teachers in relation to

understanding the contribution of both parties in the child’s

development. Our teacher and principal interviewees were indeed

sensitive to the desirability of a dialogic approach with parents rather

than subscribing to the view that communication is one way, from

teacher to parent. As one observed:

You (the teacher) are not the person who is the only repository

of knowledge. That parents have such a huge amount of

knowledge to give, it mightn’t be academic knowledge, and that

sounds patronising now, but what I mean is that they are the

teachers, the original teachers. (Principal, School D)

In general, teachers claimed to value on-going communication with

parents that enabled them to know about what was going on in

children’s lives that might be affecting their ability to learn. The LS

teacher in School D was particularly conscious of the need to be

aware of the home environment:

It’s only when somebody talks and you listen to see the kind

of person they are. And I think that’s really useful …knowing

the environment they’re going back to try and achieve these

things. And it’s important for me to take account of that

because it means, one of the spin off reasons would be that

more work needs to be done in school. It cannot always,

perhaps, be achieved at home, even if parents are willing. And

so it’s important to take account of that in any plan drawn up

for the child. (Resource teacher, School D)

The class teacher in the same school also acknowledged the feedback

from parents, and was willing to change some of the ways she did

things as a result:


86

Sometimes you find out things about the children that you

weren’t aware of. found out this year that quite a few of the

children were stressed about their spelling tests on a Friday,

and I hadn’t been aware of that. It was never meant as, it was

a very small, very little test, but I wasn’t aware, it was several

parents that said to me that the children were anxious to get

all their spellings right. If they get all their spellings right, they

get a sticker. So I thought, maybe I shouldn’t be giving them a

sticker, if it’s putting stress on people. So next year, I decided if

they get them all right, they wont be getting a sticker, because

it’s putting pressure, counting how many stickers they have in

their copy. And that was something that was kind of a

revelation to me this year. (Teacher, School D)

These responses indicate that schools feel that there is a ‘general

accessibility’ of school staff to parents. Whether parents’ experiences

of contact with schools is as ‘open door’ or always as positive as the

above account suggests is the theme of the next section.

3.3 outcomESoFthESchoolrEportingprocESS:

parEntalandlEarnErExpEriEncES

This second part of the chapter attends to the outcomes and impact

of the school reporting process in that it documents how the various

players experience it. Firstly we present and analyse the evidence

paying particular attention to the learner perspective. Then we

foreground parental experiences of the process identifying several key

themes specifically the following: the nature of information on offer

by schools; the frequency and timing of parent-teacher meetings; and,

variation in parental perspectives according to school raising class as a

possible mediator.


87

3.3.1 The Learner Perspective

Interviews were held in each school with a focus group ranging in

size from four to eighteen pupils. The children were mainly drawn

from fifth and sixth classes. The number of newcomer children varied

from one school to another, depending on the school population. For

example School B, a Gaelscoil had only a few newcomer children

enrolled, while School F had over 50% newcomers. This was

reflected in the composition of the focus groups.

As a means of getting children to think about report cards and parent

teacher meeting, we asked children to complete a reflection sheet

(see Appendix 1) with two questions prior to discussing their

experiences of report cards and what parents say after parent teacher

meetings. In most cases, children felt happy (11 children) or OK (11

children) about the report cards and parent teacher meetings. Two

children indicated that they felt unhappy about the outcome of

report cards and parent-teacher meetings. Were this pattern to be

reflected in a larger sample it raises questions about providing

opportunities for children to not only talk about their positive

experiences, but also their negative perceptions.

In general, pupils were very able and willing to express their opinions

on matters relating to reporting of their progress to their parents.

Aspects of the reporting process were important events in the lives of

the pupils, such as when their parents receive the school report. They

expressed strong emotions of fear, anxiousness and curiosity before

the report is due and then depending on its nature, emotions of

happiness, disappointment, etc. when the report is read. Partly this is

because of the anticipated reaction of their parents:

When I get my report card, it’s very nerve wrecking and when

they say don’t open the card, I feel like I really want to know

what’s in it, because if I know what’s in it, I will know what


88

to feel about it when my mum and dad open my report card.

So sometimes, when I go outside, I take a quick peek at the

report card to see if I did well. At times is might say that I am

really good at lots of things and then say that he does this

thing too much or he does a thing that isn’t really what your

parents would like. And when you get home, you might feel a

bit like, Oh my God, what am I going to do, my mum’s going

to kill me, oh I’m doomed. And you don’t feel like, happy.

(Boy, aged 12, School F)

The same child says that he likes to have a look at it before giving it

to his parents so that he can anticipate their reaction. Another child

in the same group doesn’t open hers:

If it was bad I’d be nervous all the way home- my mum and

dad wouldn’t be happy if I opened it and they’d be in a bad

mood then (Girl, aged 11, School F).

More usually however, the opportunity to look at the report does

not arise, and children depend on their parents to tell them, or not,

what it says. While they can generally predict what kind of responses

they will get, they are still apprehensive. Sometimes they are

pleasantly surprised:

I don’t think I’m very good at art, but I got a good mark at

art this year. And I never knew I was any good at art at all.

(Boy, School D)

Generally the report helps to confirm what the children already

know about their own progress in learning:

Interviewer: Who do you think the cards are written for

then? Are they for parents do you think?

Child 1: Parents I think, yes. It’s to show them how you are

getting on at school.


89

Child 2: You would know yourself anyway how you are

doing. You would know if you were finding Maths easy or hard

or whatever. Interviewer: There are no big surprises, so, in these

report cards?

Children: No. (Interview with children from sixth class,

School E).

The children felt that they had a good idea in general about how

they would score in most subjects, as when this class took part in an

exercise where they drew up their own mock report cards:

We had to write what we would give ourselves out of 10 for

different things. It was pretty much the same as what the

teacher gave. (Child, sixth class, School E)

It is clear that receiving a report from school is a significant event for

pupils. Their reactions suggest that they take seriously the grades they

receive and the comments made by teachers about their behaviour.

They would however like reports to concentrate more on the

positive:

Boy 1: Oh, there’s not much on the things you’re good at.

Boy 2: Yes, there is like loads on what you need to work on,

but there’s not enough on what you’re good at. (Children’s

focus group, school B)

Pupils would like more detailed information about their progress in

individual subjects with a view to working on areas of difficulty:

I’d like to have a report where you know exactly, like say in a

subject, there are loads of little things, like maths or Irish, you

know exactly where you’re failing and where you’re going well.

So you don’t just have, Ok there’s your mark, you don’t know

what’s after going wrong in the mark. (Boy, School D)


90

They perceive that certain domains of competence currently on

report cards do not address all those areas of competence they

recognise in their own experience and would like acknowledged and

valued more explicitly by schools – and by implication – reported to

parents. They felt that the school report should give a more rounded

picture of themselves, their achievements and personality. They would

like more detailed information on things they are good at, and they

would definitely like more detail on sports, drama, art or music:

Child1: Sport should be on it. PE is not the same as sport

(School C)

Child 1: One thing that I’d definitely change about the

reports, I’d add drama into it.

Child 2: Yes.

Child 1: And that’s not just because (teacher’s name) told me

if there was, I’d get a good mark. (Children’s focus group,

School D)

Boy 1: Also a personality column I think

Interviewer: And what would go down there?

Boy 1. Like if you were shy, if you were helpful

Boy 2: Enthusiastic – things like that should be on it

(Children’s focus group, School C)

Some pupils wanted more detailed information on areas such as

attendance in order to explain the reasons for their rate of

attendance. Often there are one or two report cards per year and the

idea of increasing the number was welcomed by pupils as long as it

did not involve more tests.

For some pupils part of the school report experience involves a social

comparison including teasing, being compared with other family

members, being rewarded (or not). This question of rewards came up

especially in discussion with the children from School B, where the


91

majority of the children looked forward to tangible rewards for a

good report:

Child 1: I got money and clothes

Child 2: I got a new phone; I got a track suit and loads of

money

Interviewer: That’s when you got a good report card?

Child 2: Yup. If I get a bad one…If I got a bad one I’d get

sent to bed (Children’s focus group, School B)

Similarly the discussion between parents and their children after the

annual parent-teacher meeting is associated with strong emotions on

the part of the children. They see the parent-teacher meeting as

similar in function to the report; it was described by one child as like

a report in talking. Both report card results and feedback to children

via parents after parent-teacher meetings have a noticeable emotional

and affective dimension:

My parents wouldn’t be happy if I got Good or Very Good-

that’s a bit ordinary- they want me to get Excellent all the

time (Boy, aged 12, School F)

My mum would be sad if I didn’t improve in subjects (Girl,

aged 11, School F)

Waiting to hear what the teacher has said about them at the parent-

teacher meeting is equally nerve-wracking.

Girl1: I feel like I’m going to have a nervous breakdown!

Girl 2: You feel like you’re going to die!

Interviewer: Why? Do you not know what to expect?

Boy 1: Most of the time you do...

Boy 2: I thought I was doing bad in a subject but my teacher

didn’t say anything, just I was improving (Children’s focus

group, School F).


92

Some children would like to be present at the parent-teacher

meeting: Some pupils were not in favour of attending but they

wanted to know what was discussed and considered this to be

connected to their learning. About half the pupils interviewed

expressed a desire to attend the meetings and felt that they would

benefit from participating in the discussion. They would also like to

have some input into what is said:

Child 1: The teacher just says what you’re good at and then

what you need to get better at whatever. And if you were in

along with your mother you would hear

Child 2: You could explain things about yourself

Child 3: I would say put an extra 2 minutes on to each one

so the children can come in

Child 1: They (parents) don’t tell every tiny bit of

information so we should be allowed to go in to hear what is

being said about you (Children’s focus group, school C)

Views of the children in School D were more ambivalent:

Boy 1: I’d love to go to the parent teacher meeting to know

what the teacher thinks of you really and like sometimes my

parents would forget something what he told ya. You wouldn’t

know what it’s all about, what, if you’re talking too much or

you’re too giddy or like that

Girl 1: I would and I wouldn’t because you’re kind of nervous

to go down, to see if you’re falling behind or, and if you get a

low mark or anything. And I would because sometimes your

parents leave out some of the good parts and they have to get

the bad parts into ya so you can … (improve)

Parent-teacher meetings thus have an informational function but also

serve in many cases a regulatory function in relation to application to


93

schoolwork and behaviour in school. It was very clear that such

reports influence how pupils see themselves as learners and how they

perceive their strengths and weaknesses. The children in the focus

groups (who were all at the upper end of the primary school age

range) would like to know exactly what is reported orally about

them. They also would like to see the reports written about them.

They suspect (with some justification) that teachers may say things to

their parents that do not appear in writing. It is also clear that they

would like more input themselves into the reporting process.

It is worth noting some continuities and discontinuities with the

school evidence on policy and practice presented earlier as well as

some implications that arise from the evidence from learners. Firstly,

it would seem that many children can fairly accurately predict their

teachers’ evaluations of their learning, thus confirming the stance

adopted generally by schools that there should be ‘no surprises’ (for

parents). Yet, children voiced the desire for more information that

would help them know what to do to improve hinting at their wish

for greater specificity than they currently obtain. They also wish for a

more comprehensive reporting in terms of topics covered (e.g. sport)

and areas of development covered (social aspects). Just how

intellectually and emotionally significant reports of their learning are

to children themselves may well be under-estimated by schools. It is

likely that children would welcome and benefit from the opportunity

to discuss such reports (whether school report or substance of

parent-teacher meeting) with their teachers. Such conversations

might usefully occur in the context of the more recent impetus for

‘assessment for learning’ in Ireland (NCCA, 2007). What is clear is

that learners are eager to participate earnestly in discussions of their

learning, to have the opportunity to negotiate targets for their future

achievement, and to reflect on factors influencing their learning.

Taking account of this evidence could involve schools in greater

attention to the purposes of reporting, particularly, the twin


94

assessment purposes of assessment for and of learning and their

implications for school reports of pupil learning to parents.

3.3.2 Parents’ Access to Information about their Children’s Learning

One of the overarching findings from our interviews with parents

was the appreciation of access to schools and teachers at times and in

ways that fitted with their availability and concerns, although from

their perspective, not all schools exhibited such accessibility. Further,

our evidence points to social class as a possible influencing factor in

understanding parents’ ability to access teachers. We also document

the variation in parental perspectives by school which highlights the

potential impact of class on outcomes. We develop these points in

what follows and highlight their implications for future policy and

practice.

3.3.2.1 Parental Appreciation of Informal Contacts

Informal contact varies within the schools and between schools. As

we already noted informal contact is most pronounced at the junior

and senior infants level. As children progress through the school

informal contact often changes unless schools create other formal

structures for communicating with parents as in the case of School D

which has a bi-weekly newsletter and a specific slot for parents to

add/receive notes in children’s journals. Parents report great

satisfaction with both these methods of reporting and actively look

for notes from teachers. They say that this gives them a great sense of

trust and knowledge of the workings of the school. In addition, they

actively look for these communications as indicated by these parental

responses:

He’s (Principal) brilliant that way, no matter what kind of

activities or what was going on, there was a newsletter. Now

you might get it a week after from you own child, like. It’s


95

gone to the stage where you would be rooting in the bag

looking for something in it. (Parent, School D)

There’s very few weeks that go by that you don’t have a note

home over something. Just to say something is going on or, you

know, or what it is. No matter how small it is you have a

note. And they have a set part of their folder, like my boy is

only 6, 6 1/2 and they have a separate part of the folder for

notes there for the mothers to look, rather than having the

children, you know at that age they wouldn’t be telling you.

(Parent, School D)

School F (a school with a large diversity of cultures and 40

languages) places particular emphasis on openness and informality,

and this is endorsed by the parents in the focus group:

Parent 1: You just walk in and you feel so welcome. There is

never anybody to say ‘What are you doing at this time?’ You

just walk up to the teacher and you are getting feedback and

can talk to them any time. Which I find is really good, because

if you have any concerns about your child, you can just address

it then and there. And so the teachers are very approachable

and it’s like a good appraisal of where your child is lacking,

and where they are doing well.

Parent 2: Yeah, well mostly if there is a difficulty, of course.

But you know that they are very, very open and whenever you

have problem, you can go and talk to them. So, if you really

have some concern, you can go to them. It is nothing like every

week, like you are allowed only on a weekly basis or monthly.

It is very open for every day. And the principal is very

approachable as well.


96

Parents reported being extremely satisfied with the reporting process

at this school with one parent saying that the school report in

particular was “100% right” and a fair reflection of her child:

Parent: Yeah, I think it is absolutely great and I feel like, when

I see they have different categories, like say, excellent, good and

fair. And then they have a subject on the right so they mark

excellent, good and fair, you know in a computer way. But

what I find, when I see the report card I really know that they

are 100% right. Because you know your child. Like my child

is not good in music and when I see the report card it is

marked fair, because I know he is not very much into music.

So I think the report card is very general and absolutely a

reflection of what they are. So very, very happy with them.

….Ok, so this is a matter of interest like in music. Mostly he

gets in music, Fair. But that is not his interest, I just, well, I

can’t push him. But other is computers, he is not technical, he

is more sporty so the computer he gets Good. So I would go

with that and say look, you have to do that, kind of thing.

And I help him with it. Like the next time I talk to him, like

the next time I want Excellent in computers as well, you are

not good. So that is what I will just, when I see, I know that

he is not big into computers that so my intention is to work

with him to improve the report he gets. (Parent Interview,

School F)

This parent of two boys in third and fifth classes, who is from India

originally and living in Ireland for the last seven years, uses the report

to motivate her child to do better. She makes a judgement about

what she focuses on: ‘computers’ and what she lets go: ‘music’. She

has confidence in the report’s accuracy in measuring her child’s

progress and in her ability to support his progress. It is clear that she

understands that effort rather than ability will make for improvement.


97

The teachers in this school seem to be well aware of the impact of

what they say to parents. As one teacher in the focus group observed,

The parents care so much about their kids’ progress that the words are burned

into their brains once they’ve read them.

Overall there is considerable satisfaction expressed by parents in this

school. They have confidence in the school’s reporting mechanisms

and feel the school could not be doing more to make them feel

welcome and to build confidence in their children. They mentioned

the weekly test copies and the weekly assembly where ‘Star of the

Week’ was announced. In addition all the parents in the focus group

spoke of the intercultural environment that has been developed. In

the focus group, three of the four parents were from other cultures,

two from India and one from Pakistan, although none of them were

newcomers, having lived in Ireland for 7, 10, and 12 years.

Interestingly in this school instead of a Parent Association there is a

Parent-Teacher Association.

The informal mechanisms were clearly very important for them.

These included the monthly parent coffee mornings, the daily

meetings as they dropped off their children, the food fair and other

intercultural events. The principal and his approach to parents and

children was particularly noted:

Parent 2: I think in Ireland, principals are more approachable

like ‘John’10 is, you know you can walk up to him. Kids, you

should see the way kids react to him. He is a god, and he is so

popular. I have never seen any principal that popular.

Parent 3: I remember the first time I meet John, the Principal,

the school was open, it was John the first time I met him, one

of the kids stopped him and hugged him after summer

holidays. The child came in, gave him a big hug and handed

him a card, ‘I missed you John’. I stepped back, I had never

10 Not the teacher’s real name


98

met John before and I looked at him and I thought, wow, isn’t

that a lovely relationship. And in the winter months, when

they were out having yard time, he’d run the kids all around

the school. They would chase him and it was to keep warm

and be healthy.

When asked by the interviewer what could be improved about

reporting, the following response was offered:

Parent: Again, like what you said, it is like complaining about

an almost perfect situation. But sometimes when they get good

reports I am thinking, maybe I need to hear more about the

negative things. You know, in some ways, which is great for the

child, but I would like to hear more about the areas they are

not doing so well. We do get to hear about it, but generally it

is like ‘no, it is very good’, you know.

3.3.2.2 Variation across Parents: School and Class Influences

However, not all parents were so fulsome in their praise with a

noticeable variation across parents by school. There is a marked

difference between parents’ views in School A and B (disadvantaged

status) and Schools C and D (which could largely be characterised as

middle-class) and where parents were unanimously positive in their

accounts of the reporting practices they experience. Parents in School

F as just noted are enthusiastic in their satisfaction. In School D there

is a general consensus that teachers are intimately aware of children’s

learning needs and a constant communicating occurs between home

and school. You know yourself, if you have a problem, you can walk down

to the teacher now this minute and she’d come out and talk to you. You’re not

wasting her time …it’s small things. (Parent, School D)

Lareau’s (1987) research is telling at this stage. Her research focussed

on the differential participation practices of parents in a middle-class


99

school and another working class school. Both schools had explicit

open-door policies and valued parent participation. However, she

clearly found class differences in parents’ ability to intervene on their

children’s behalf. Middle class parents were very comfortable actively

intervening on academic issues whereas working class parents when

they did intervene did so on non-academic issues and were clearly

uncomfortable in discussing academic issues with teachers.

In School D it is clear that parents feel very comfortable monitoring

and checking on their children’s work and progress and have

confidence in both their own reading of this work and in their

interventions in school. School D, a rural two-teacher largely middle

class school where the principal has intergenerational knowledge of

the children and their parents, has a strong ethos of parent

communication and respect that is structured formally through

biweekly newsletters and journal notes to parents on a daily basis.

Not only is there ongoing informal contact on a daily basis with all

class levels but there also is a structured formal way of keeping in

touch with parents through bi-weekly newsletters. There is also a

space in the student’s journals specifically for parent communication.

In the following quotes from two parents there is a strong sense that

these parents are confident in the reporting practices of the school.

What is also striking about these parents is their sense of their own

responsibility and ability to monitor their children’s progress.

You’d see yourself if there was a problem…well personally if I

had a problem I’d just come in then and ask. You know, does

he need this or is that ok, but I can see it every evening with

like the homework coming home. In his writing in books and

how he’s getting on. (Parent, School D)

This parent feels very comfortable in coming in and meeting the

teachers. There is a sense that she is monitoring closely her child’s


100

progress and feels it is her job to do this. The same sense of

monitoring and keeping on top of children’s progress is evident in

another parent’s response below:

And they give them all their own little tests, they’re there on

the bottom of the copy, it’s up to the parents to check that and

see what kind of progress they’re doing. I mean everything is

down there in black and white in front of you. You know

where they got 20% or 50%, that’s actually in their copies as

well when they come home apart from the tests that they do

for the parent teacher meeting. (Parent, School D)

This confidence is in marked contrast to parents in both School A

and B which are both disadvantaged schools. Parents from both

schools raise issues around reporting practices. Although both these

schools value and have developed many enlightened policies in

reporting practices which parents acknowledge and appreciate, there

are still differences in the school’s experience of what they do and in

the parents’ experience of the schools’ practices. It is also important

to add that there are within-school differences that the focus groups

illuminated with different teachers giving slightly different messages.

The main issues can be discussed under the following headings: a)

parent-teacher meetings and the quality of information, b) fear of

disturbing teachers’ work, and c) variability within schools.

3.3.2.3 Parent-Teacher Meetings and the Quality of Information

In many of the schools there is a consensus that the time available for

the parent-teacher meetings is inadequate. The parent-teacher

meeting (once a year in Oct/Nov) in both disadvantaged schools is

viewed as rushed, and the information received is perceived as not

helpful to them becoming helpful to their children. Those parents, in

particular, expressed a desire to have more time with teachers and to


101

obtain more constructive information about how to support their

children’s learning:

They could do one or two meetings in the year. Because the

meeting is quick, about 5 minutes, so you’re only getting a

quick look at homework copies. If you’re child is good enough,

5 minutes is fine, I have some where you would need 1/2 an

hour. (Parent, School B)

I think there should be 2/3 of them a year. I find in October,

November they’ve only just started school – so they still

haven’t got to know the child and what their capabilities are.

They tell you in October but you don’t know how well he’s

done in February. (Parent, School A)

There is a general dissatisfaction with the structure and frequency of

meetings in School B. Parents talked in the focus group of trying to

manage the parent teacher meetings and one describes rushing

around to different prefabs to meet teachers with younger children in

tow and then having to queue for long periods. In addition they

then have a very unsatisfactory meeting.

Parent 1: Yeah, we did have one parent teacher meeting, but I

was in and out. You queued for 1/2 and hour and were in

and out in 5 minutes. And it was general, ok this, ok that. It

really didn’t give much, but there are so many in the class. But

it would be good if you could do this with her, maybe to help

reading, etc. I have no experience, I didn’t know what to do

with her, how to help her. 5 minutes of information isn’t

enough.

Parent 2: No. I was there for 3 or 4 minutes and it didn’t

give me any extra information. I know what she does, but not

how to help her. (Parents, School B)


102

This contrasts in particular with the experience of parents in School

F, which conducts its parent teacher meetings over several weeks and

allocates each parent a specific time slot, and with School D which is

a small 2 teacher school. One gets a sense of large classes and few

resources in School B:

Parent 1: Yes, what you could do. I know time is very limited,

there are a lot of pupils, that maybe each parent could sit down

on their own day and have a 1/2 hour and get the

information about what parents could do. To learn more about

their day. Especially when it is your first child, you don’t know

how it all works.

Parents in Schools A and B interpret the parent-teacher meeting as a

forum in which to receive help from the teacher in order to help

their child progress. They feel they did not get this kind of help. The

meetings are perceived as too rushed and too short.

In School E there is a sense that there has been quite a lot of

thought put into the quality of information parents receive about the

working of the school, the school curriculum, and teaching

approaches. There is a ‘communication journal’ which is used by

parents and teachers for communicating notes about children’s

progress as well as events in the school. In addition there is a meeting

at the beginning of the year to communicate to parents about the

year and what the children will be learning.

There is a meeting in September or early October for each class

teacher and parents. Various aspects of school life are discussed-

schoolwork, homework, the work scheme in question for each

particular class, how subjects are taught (e.g. at infant level,

how the teacher will go about teaching Irish), code of dress for

school and sports etc. If parents have any questions, they can

ask the teacher at this meeting. The meeting usually takes place


103

in the evening, around 7 or 8 o’clock so that both parents have

the opportunity to come if they so wish. (Parent)

In School A, the Traveller parent suggested that such a meeting

would be very helpful for parents. The meeting described above does

not assume that parents are familiar with the curriculum, teaching

approach, content and so on. Research strongly emphasizes the need

for quality information about teaching and learning to be

communicated to parents (NCCA, 2006, 2007). In addition, AfL

learning cultures focus on creating the learning conditions that

improve student learning and engagement. In so doing students/

parents get the kind of information that makes clear the incremental

steps that students/parents/teachers can take to reach higher

cognitive levels of educational engagement and outcome. Some of

our parent interviews indicate that parents would welcome and

benefit from greater levels of constructive feedback about their

children, especially feedback that would direct them in very specific

ways towards how they could support their child’s learning.

3.3.2.4 Fear of ‘disturbing teacher’s work’

In several of the schools, there was a difference in perception

between parents and teachers regarding the perceived ‘openness’ of

the school. In most schools, parents of children in the infant classes

have the greatest daily contact with the school. Parents in School A

for example felt that with younger children they had more informal

contact. As children got older and especially if they had more than

one child, they were less likely to be dropping off their children and

therefore they missed the ongoing informal contact with teachers

where they could get a sense of any problems or issues with their

children. Even though parents said that there was ‘an open door

policy’ in the school (a term that both principal and teachers used

also) and they were constantly told by teachers and principal to come


104

to discuss any problems they had, they felt constrained by their

feeling that they would be ‘interrupting’ or ‘disturbing’ the teachers.

In this regard one parent in School A would welcome more

scheduled meetings rather than be expected to initiate meetings

herself:

You want them to approach you rather then you going up to

the school, you don’t want to be prodding all the time ‘how is

my child doing?’ If they brought that out from themselves a

couple of times a year. (Parent, School A)

In School A, which has a large minority of Traveller parents and

which is very aware of the needs of Travellers, the Traveller mother

used the verb ‘disturbing’ to describe how she would resist coming

into school to address issues with the teachers.

If you run into the teachers in the corridor they might say ‘X

is doing very well’ and you might have a conversation for a

minute or two, …you don’t want to have to come up to the

teacher, you don’t feel like you’re disturbing the class if you’re

going up. (Emphasis added)

Traveller parents’ reluctance to attend parent teacher meetings may

be interpreted by teachers as Travellers not being interested in school.

This Traveller mother represents her own and other Traveller

women’s reluctance as stemming from something different. Later on

in the focus group she addresses the fact that the report card comes

in written form even though many of the Traveller women she

knows have literacy problems.

If the children were not up to speed, see a lot of the children

will be coming from the Traveller community, where I am

coming from myself, and a lot of parents can’t read or write, so

if there’s reports going home, they can’t read it anyways like.


105

In addition, she talks about the fact that literacy problems were not

picked up in another school with Travellers and then children

dropping out of secondary school because of it:

Because even girls in St X’s at the other school, not this school,

and touch wood, not mine. But the girls went through the

whole primary school. And when they did their assessments in

6th class for the secondary, they weren’t ready for it…. Never

picked up and like I have nieces who went up to secondary

school, went to primary school, they were two years in

secondary school, they fell out because they couldn’t read from

senior infants (Traveller parent, School A.)

It was interesting in this focus group how settled parents were

supportive of this Traveller parent’s honestly saying it from her own

community’s point of view. One mother was clearly critical of this

school’s practice and viewed it as ‘degrading’:

Because I think the school knows the parents that can read

and can’t read, you know. Don’t they? … So, I mean, maybe

they should bring them in, instead of sending this. I mean

that’s, it’s degrading to a person, to an adult that can’t read as

well. ‘Why are they sending me these things, they know I

can’t read?’

Although this Traveller parent was talking of a neighbouring school it

brings an interesting perspective to the practice of sending report

cards home to parents who do not read or write. In the case of

parents with literacy difficulties schools need to consider how they

accommodate their reporting needs. They may need to find ways of

helping parents access the information in other ways.

In School B parents’ ability to approach school if they have a

problem or issues regarding their children’s participation or


106

engagement with school is mediated by the physical constraints of

having other younger children to take care of and not being able to

visit the school for the informal meetings with teachers. They also

are constrained by their children in senior classes apparently not

wanting mammys and daddys coming in (School B).

The interpretation that they may be disturbing the teacher may be a

cultural/class issue and is an issue raised in previous research

(Connell, 1982; Lareau, 1987). Connell coined the term of working-

class parents being ‘frozen out’ of school decision-making. Is there

some way that these schools are inadvertently ‘freezing out’ parents or

giving them unintentional messages about disturbing them?

Following is an excerpt from an interview in School A:

Interviewer: So do you feel you get enough information

about your child as a learner?

Parent 1: I think from discussing it here, we’re actually not.

Parent 2: No, looking in hindsight, we’re not. Unless we go

and ask the questions ourselves.

Parent 3: Which you holdback doing, because you have this

thing, ‘oh, here she comes again’.

Parent 2: That’s it.

Parent 3: And everybody fears that.

In this excerpt it is implied that parents perceive that schools depend

on them having the ability to ‘ask the right questions’. However,

working-class, poor and newcomer parents may not have the cultural

knowledge to ask the right questions about their children’s progress,

learning and the decisions being taken that impact on future chances

for learning. For the most part middle-class parents who have

navigated school successfully have the cultural and social capital to be

able to advocate, support, and challenge school procedures that do

not make sense for their child as we already noted in chapter 1 (see


107

especially Lareau, 1987, Lynch, 2002). Schools need to be cognisant

of this in the kind of information they give to parents and the

assumptions they make about parents’ ability to access and use

information that will impact on a child’s learning progress.

3.3.3 Variability within Schools: Children with SEN

In the first section of the chapter it emerged that children with

special educational needs experience greater levels of scrutiny and

closer checks on the validity and reliability of assessments than their

non-SEN peers. This greater attention was also evident in the

parental interviews with parents who had children experiencing

learning difficulties expressing greater satisfaction with their schools’

reporting practices. This contrast was evident within School A and

School B. This variability may be linked to the fact that children who

are receiving learning support have more access to teacher’s time and

more resources in the form of learning support/resource teacher

availability. In the following excerpt two parents have clearly different

interpretations and experiences of school contact and reporting.

Mary (not her real name) feels she does not get enough information

because her child is not viewed as having problems. Kate whose child

receives learning support feels she has plenty of information on her

child’s progress. They have different experiences of teacher availability

and information received from school:

Mary: Different teachers do different things

Kate: Different teachers yeah….

Mary: Although I think if a child isn’t having any problems

you wouldn’t hear as much. So you would like to hear how

good a child is doing as well as

Kate: I have heard plenty now. I haven’t found that they

didn’t inform me.

Mary: I mean they are very approachable. I meant don’t get


108

me wrong there. On an even keel that there’s no complaints

and nothing to worry about you wouldn’t hear as much.

In this excerpt Mary is clearly not satisfied with the quality of the

information I don’t think they give a grade or anything – they just tell you

their progress. One gets a sense that a parent with a child on ‘an even

keel’ or average child may not be getting as much specific

information on progress as they would wish for. This school has a

sophisticated process of tracking children’s literacy/numeracy skills

but in this effort the ‘average’ child may not be tracked as closely

which this parent is picking up on. Kate whose child is receiving

learning support feels she has plenty of information and access to

help.

Another parent in School A described her son’s teacher who has

made himself available to parents every morning from 8.20 to 8.50

and has communicated that to them. This formal structure initiated

by the teacher provided her with enough encouragement to come

into the classroom space without any fear of ‘disturbing the teacher.’

This structure explicitly advocates and invites parental involvement:

The other way is if there is ever any problem with a child in

the school, the teacher will let you know that he wants to have

a word with you, either at, Michael’s teacher now, in particular,

has informed me now that he is available every morning if I

have a query or if I want to ask him anything. He’s in the

office at about 20 past 8, so I can go into him from 20 past 8

until 10 to 9, any morning of the week if I have any worries

or…

Similar issues on frequency of reporting and what is in the report are

raised in school B. There is also some evidence of differences

between teachers in the quality of the information given and

different parents’ ability to ask for a meeting with teachers. One


109

parent who has been in the school for 12 years feels very confident

about asking for a meeting. The other parent believes that these

meetings should happen for all parents. It is clear that these schools

depend on parents to be able to ask for a meeting and to be able to

raise the kind of questions that they need to raise in terms of their

children’s progress.

The meanings of parents’ experiences and schools experiences of

contact with school may diverge somewhat in terms of purpose,

content and effectiveness. The ‘open door’ policies of schools and

their reliance on ‘oral informal contacts’ may be insufficient to build

the kind of reciprocal learning partnerships between parents and

teachers that research demonstrates is an essential aspect of improving

educational outcomes for students. In particular, it may be insufficient

for low SES parents (Ryan, 1999, Epstein, 1996). Other research

shows that most schools do not know the goals parents have for their

children nor do they understand what kind of information is useful

for parent in helping their children engage in learning (Epstein,

1996). These ‘corridor’ or ‘on the run’ conversations are most likely

insufficient contexts for unpacking the meanings, goals, and needs of

parents in becoming advocates, supporters, and partners with teachers

in improving educational outcomes for children.

3.4SummaryoFmainFindingS

We will discuss the implications and recommendations arising out of

the evidence presented in this chapter (and in Chapter 4) in more

detail in Chapter 5. At this point we summarise the main findings

from the case study data.

3.4.1 Policy and Practice

There is much conformity across the practice of preparing and

dispatching school reports to parents with all our case study schools


110

adhering broadly to DES guidelines in relation to school reports and

parent-teacher meetings.

Schools devote a relatively high level of professional attention to the

production of accounts of learning of pupils with special educational

needs and parents of these children seem to experience greater

contact with schools and there is evidence that they are satisfied with

their school’s reporting arrangements.

The evidence presented attests to the perceived power of written

reports to impact on parents and children and to impact on schools

themselves. Schools seek to protect children, parents and indeed

themselves from the potential effects of negative accounts of pupil

progress. Teachers perceive the annual parent-teacher meeting to be a

more significant reporting event than the school report since the

former offers the opportunity to identify ways in which parents

might support their child’s learning.

Although mindful of standardised assessment results as they compile

reports, schools do not usually report the actual results of such tests

in their reports to parents either verbally or in writing. Practice on

the use and reporting of standardised testing varies according to

school and within the levels of the school with teachers in infant

classes more likely to draw on evidence arising from observations and

screening inventories and teachers of older pupils more likely to

draw on standardised assessments.

The annual parent-teacher meeting, which typically occurs late in

the first term, functions as a mechanism for passing on information

to parents and identifying ways in which they might support their

children as learners. It is mainly a one-way system of communication

from the teacher to the parent. Some schools adopt highly flexible

scheduling for these meetings to encourage both parents to attend to


111

facilitate working parents to come to the school. Parents are very

appreciative of this initiative.

Schools identify linguistic diversity as a major challenge for them in

the context of reporting to parents about their children’s progress.

Schools tend to present their schools as places that are easily

accessible to parents (‘open door’) and they present themselves as

people who are in regular contact with them.

3.4.2 Outcomes and Experiences

Many children can fairly accurately predict their teachers’ evaluations

of their learning, thus confirming the stance adopted generally by

schools that there should be ‘no surprises’ (for parents) in school

reports.

Children voiced the desire for more information that would help

them know what to do to improve hinting at their wish for greater

specificity than they currently obtain. They also wish for a more

comprehensive reporting in terms of topics covered (e.g. sport) and

areas of development covered (social aspects).

How intellectually and emotionally significant reports of their

learning are to children themselves may well be under-estimated by

schools. The arrival of the school report and the occurrence of the

parent-teacher meeting constitute important and vivid ‘reporting

episodes’ in the lives of children.

It is likely that children would welcome and benefit from the

opportunity to discuss such reports (whether school report or

substance of parent-teacher meeting) with their teachers. Such

conversations might usefully occur in the context of the more recent

impetus for ‘assessment for learning’ in Ireland (NCCA, 2007). What

is clear is that learners are eager to participate earnestly in discussions


112

of their learning, to have the opportunity to negotiate targets for

their future achievement, and to reflect on factors influencing their

learning. Taking account of this evidence could involve schools in

greater attention to the purposes of reporting, particularly, the twin

assessment purposes of assessment for and of learning.

One of the overarching findings from our interviews with parents

was the appreciation of access to schools and teachers at times and in

ways that fitted with their availability and concerns. Where schools

adopted flexible and parent-friendly approaches to scheduling of

meetings participation and satisfaction were both greater.

Our evidence points to social class as an influencing factor in

understanding parents’ ability to access teachers. There is a noticeable

variation across parents’ perceptions by school with parents from

middle class backgrounds appearing to be more able to access the

information they need about their children than their less well off

peers in ‘disadvantaged’ catchments. For middle class parents the

‘open-door’ policy claimed by schools was not so problematic.

Even when schools adopted highly encouraging and flexible

mechanisms for enabling parents communicate with teachers about

their children’s learning, parents themselves felt that they were unsure

or unclear about how to support their children’s learning.

Parents expressed uncertainty about the meanings of terms like ‘fair’

and the meanings of grades and numbers suggesting that they need

greater opportunities to engage with teachers about their children’s

progress and in particular to have greater access to evidence and

exemplification to indicate levels of achievement. They would appear

to need more opportunities to consider the meanings of terms and

numbers especially as these are used in school reports.


113

Most parents would appreciate more time and more flexible

scheduling of parent teacher meetings with greater detail about how

they might intervene to support the work of the school in

promoting their children’s learning.

While our evidence shows that very many parents value the

opportunities they currently get to participate in dialogue with

schools about their children’s learning, there are challenges and

implications that merit the attention of policy makers and schools.

There are also related issues arising from the children’s interviews.

The main issues for consideration are:

• The limited opportunities some parents perceive they have for

sustained and meaningful discussion with teachers about children’s

progress, particularly in relation to steps they can take to help

their children.

• The desire on the part of children for greater participation in

discussions concerning their learning.

Chapter 5 will discuss these challenges and their implications. The

next chapter presents and analyses the quantitative data deriving from

the questionnaire survey.


114


115

c h a p t E r F o u r

S u r v E y o F p r i m a r y

S c h o o l S ’ r E p o r t i n g

p r a c t i c E S - r E S u l t S 1 1

11 Dr. Elena Papanastasiou and David Dungalvin were additional authors on this chapter: Conway, Hall, Rath, Murphy, Papanastasiou, Dungalvin and McKeon.


116

4.1introduction

Maintaining reports as a meaningful part of school community

life without over emphasis on them and not creating a

situation where children and parents are comparing notes and

creating a notion that standards of achievement in report cards

are the ultimate goal in a child’s school life. In simple terms

creating a situation whereby the information is accessible to

parents and teachers but not in any way a priority in the

child’s mind as part of school life. (School Principal,

Response to open-ended item on survey)

I have found that having an open approachable and non-

judgmental attitude is vital to proper relationships with

parents. This is extremely important as its puts all reporting in

a positive context (School Principal, Response to open-

ended item on survey)

I would like reporting to concentrate on what a child can do

and how we can help the child to move forward - perhaps

setting targets for further learning. I would happily eliminate

the grades and scores and would welcome reporting on the lines

of a continuum (School Principal, Response to open-


The above three quotations from school principals completing the

online survey each point to important aspects of reporting. All three

emphasise the principals’ understanding of reporting in the context

of the wider goal of schools in promoting children’s learning. The

first quotation, in particular, illustrates and the complex tensions

inherent in schools’ reporting practices vis-à-vis the need for

transparency and communication between parents and teachers on

children’s progress in learning, yet mindful that report card results,


117

and related reporting practices, ought “not be in any way a priority

in the child’s mind as part of school life”.

As we noted in the previous chapter, while there was considerable

overlap in case study schools reporting practices, there was also

considerable diversity in the ways in which schools undertake

reporting to parents. In a similar fashion, the findings in this chapter

point to a range of common practices but also to the diversity of

practices. In reporting the survey findings, we discuss them in the

context of relevant literature research and policy literature. In

particular, we note findings that pertain to issues raised in key

legislative and policy documents over the last number of years on

assessment in primary education in Ireland, that is, Assessment in the

Primary School Curriculum: Guidelines for Schools (NCCA, 2007);

Assessment in Primary Schools (NCCA, 2005) and Primary Curriculum

Review (NCCA, 2005). Specifically, in developing a school assessment

policy, the NCCA has noted that, “schools must be guided by various

legislative requirements” (2007, p. 95). Relevant legislation, as of late

2007, is as follows (NCCA, 2007):

• the Education Act (1998)

• the Data Protection (Amendment) Act (2003)

• the Equal Status Act (2000)

• the Education (Welfare) Act (2000)

• the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act

(2004)

• the Freedom of Information Acts (1997, 2003)

In presenting the survey findings, we also discuss these in terms of

O’Donoghue and Dimmock’s (2002) four propositions’ developed


118

out of a study on school reporting to parent in Western Australia (as

discussed in Chapter One). The four propositions provide a helpful

set of reference points in that they address key aspects of reporting at

the level of the school as a system, that is, leadership, learning, school

communication and professional development. Following this

introductory section, the report outlines findings of the nationally

representative survey of primary schools under the following five

headings:

• School reporting policies

• School practice on reporting: recording, report cards and other

written communication

• School practice on reporting: parent-teacher meetings

• Reporting and learning: school composition and parental

involvement

• School practice on reporting: Successes, challenges and priorities.

4.2proFilEoFSchoolScomplEtingSurvEy

4.2.1 Sample: Intended and Achieved

A probability sample was used in this study. A probability sample is

based on random selection, that is, a process which assures that the

different units (schools in this case) from the population 3,292

schools in the country had an equal probability of being chosen. The

use of a stratified random sample allows us to make inferences about

the population based on the sample. That is, it can be said with 95%

certainty that a particular figure (plus or minus the margin of error)

is the case for the entire population of primary schools (Fowler,

2001). If the intended sample had been achieved, the margin of error

would be plus or minus five percentage points. Since the achieved

sample was 45% of the intended sample, the margin of error is plus


119

or minus eight percentage points. As such, 45% return represents a

moderate response rate. Typically, mail surveys result in return/

response rate of approximately 30%. Thus, the online survey proved

moderately effective in terms of response rate given that 187 (45%)

of the 412 schools selected in the stratified random sample out of the

3,292 primary schools completed the survey. As we noted earlier, this

sample was derived from a database of primary schools available on

the DES website (last updated in 2006 and the most up to date

accessible data on primary schools). Like any social survey the

current study has limitations. First, the study has a limited sample size.

Second, the response rate is moderate. Third, the survey itself focused

on a particular set of questions related to schools reporting to parents

about children’s learning in primary schools. Consequently, it is not

possible to examine some relationships that may exist between

aspects of teaching, learning and school’s communication with

parents about their assessment of children’s progress in school.

Of the 187 schools that responded to the survey, 157 (84%) fully

completed the questionnaire. Of those 187, 171 schools (92%)

provided some information on school background (section 1). As

such, 16 schools completed survey questions sections 2-7 and did not

provide any information that allowed the research team to categorise

these schools in terms of size, DEIS status or the school’s location

(the three stratification criteria), and other demographic data that

could be used in comparing schools’ responses to questions with

another. A number of other schools - up to 24 on some questions -

did not answer portions of the school profile questions. In reporting

survey results at a descriptive level by item, we decided, in so far as

possible, to use data provided by all 187 schools in response to each

question to the extent that al schools responded to individual

questions. However, where we undertook comparisons between how

types of schools responded to particular items, we used data that

allowed us to make comparisons between schools on relevant


120

demographic information. As the number of schools responding to

various questions differs, we indicate the relevant sample data with

tables, figures and related text in this chapter and elsewhere in the

report. For example, if one hundred and seventy one schools

responded to a particular question, we indicate this with n= 171 in

the relevant table, figure or text.

Table 4.1: Intended Sample vis-à-vis Population Data12

STRATIFICATION NUMBER SAMPLE

NUMBER POPULATION

% SAMPLE % POPULATION

DEIS Urban Band 1 9 77 2% 2%

DEIS Urban Band 2 11 89 3% 3%

DEIS Rural Band 3 45 365 11% 11%

Not in DEIS 346 2761 84% 84%

TOTALS 411 3292 100% 100%

Enrollment <150 214 1700 53% 52%

>150 & <300 153 1235 37% 38%

Enrollment >300 44 357 11% 11%

TOTALS 411 3292 100% 100%

Boys 31 248 8% 8%

Girls 31 253 8% 8%

Mixed 349 2791 84% 84%

TOTALS 411 3292 100% 100%

12 Abbreviations used in the tables are as follows: n = number / count / frequency; M = mean / average; Max = maximum; Min = minimum; SD = standard deviation.


121

Table 4.2: Intended and Achieved Sample

STRATIFICATION INTENDED SAMPLE

ACHIEVEDSAMPLE

% INTENDED

%ACHIEVED

DEIS Urban Band 1 9 9 2% 5.9%

DEIS Urban Band 2 11 7 3% 4.6%

DEIS Rural Band 3 45 26 11% 17.0%

Not in DEIS 346 111 84% 72.5%

TOTALS 411 153 100% 100%

Enrollment <150 214 94 52% 55.6%

>150 & <300 153 51 37% 30.2%

Enrollment >300 44 24 11% 14.2%

TOTALS 411 169 100% 100%

Boys 31 12 8% 7.1%

Girls 31 17 8% 10.0%

Mixed 349 140 84% 82.8%

TOTALS 411 169 100% 100%

4.2.2 Sample: DEIS status and enrolment

Of the schools that responded (n=153) to the question about DEIS

status, almost three quarters (72.5%, 111 schools) were not in the

programme. The remaining 42 schools (27.5%) were in the DEIS

programme and comprised of 9 Urban Band One, 7 urban Band Two

and 26 Rural schools. As such, in terms of DEIS status (see Tables 1b

and 2), the achieved sample over represents DEIS schools (16% in

population and 27.5% in achieved sample) and under represents non-

DEIS schools (84% in population and 72.5% in population). In terms

of enrolment numbers in three categories (< 150, > 150 and < 300,

> 300) the achieved sample slightly over represents small schools

(52% in population and 55.6% in achieved sample for schools with

less than 150 students), slightly under represents medium size schools

(37% in population and 30.2% in achieved sample for schools with

greater than 150 and less than 300 students). After consultation with

an experienced survey statistician, given that the proportions in

achieved and intended samples for the three stratification categories


122

were not that different, we decided not to utilise post-stratification

weighting.

4.2.3 Sample: Language of instruction, school type and student diversity

Tables 1c, 1d and 2 and Figure 1 provide some additional

information about the responding schools. For example, most schools

were located in a rural (59.8%) rather than urban areas (40.2%).

English (see Figure 1) is the language of instruction in 89% (n=167)

of schools that responded, with Irish-medium Gaelscoileanna (5.4%)

and Irish-medium Gaeltacht (6%) schools comprising the remainder.

Nine out of ten schools (91.4%, 149 schools) are vertical (i.e. Junior

Infants to 6th class), with the remainder comprising of Junior Schools

(1.8%, 3 schools) and Senior Schools (6.7%, 11 schools) respectively.

In relation to the number of students in the responding schools

(n=170), the survey results are based on more than 27,000 students,

17,000 families, 350 traveller students and 1,900 students designated

with special education needs (SEN). Finally, the majority of

responding schools had a greater number of teaching (91 schools)

rather than administrative (76 schools) principals.

Table 4.3: Location, language of instruction and student age range: summary data on achieved sample

Classification % %

School location(n=169)

40.2 Urban(n=68)

59.8 Rural(n=101)

Language of instruction(n=168)

89.1 English (n=148)

5.4 Irish-medium: Gaeilscoil (n=9) 6.0 Irish medium: Scoil sa Ghaeltacht (n=10)

Age range (n=163)

91.4 Vertical school, i.e. Junior Infants to 6th class (n=149)

1.8 Junior School (n=3) 6.7 Senior School (n=11)


123

Table 4.4: Number of student and families in achieved sample schools

Totals By sub-group

Student numbers in sample schools

27,777 (n=170)

13,312 = Boys (n=160) 13,222 = Girls (n=162)

Families in sample schools 17,361 (n=159)

5.4 Irish-medium: Gaeilscoil (n=9) 6.0 Irish medium: Scoil sa Ghaeltacht (n=10)

Number of Irish traveller students in schools

350 (n=165)

1,046 = No of families “who have difficulty communicating in English” (n=164)

Number of students designated with SEN

1,854 (n=161)

Figure 4.1: Language of Instruction

Given the changing demographic structure of Irish society, it is not

surprising that this is reflected in the students enrolled in the sample

schools that provided relevant information. The changing ethnic

make up of schools evident in the sample is important in beginning

to understand some of the challenges schools may face in

communicating with an increasingly diverse student body for schools

in many parts of the country.


124

A number of trends are noteworthy (see Table 3). First, the vast

majority of schools (84%, 139 out of 165) reported that 90% or more

of their students are Irish. Second, about one in eight schools had

10-25% student population of ethnicities other than Irish (i.e.

10-25% Other). Third, almost 4% of schools (1 in 20) had more than

25% of students from ethnicity other than Irish, and all these schools

(3 with 26-50%; and 3 with greater than 50%) are located in urban

settings. Fourth, it is in urban settings that schools have the higher

proportions of students from ‘other ethnicities’.

When asked to respond to the question: Please list the three largest

ethnic groups in school in order 1, 2 and 3 (e.g. Irish, Polish,

Nigerian), schools provided evidence of the current diversity in Irish

primary schools with 36 different ethnicities noted by responding

schools. The most frequently nominated ethnic backgrounds were:

Polish (50 schools), English (25 schools) and Nigerian (18 schools).

4.3 SchoolrEportingpoliciES

A whole staff course is needed. A school policy should probably

be drawn up. Need for caution on over reporting for fear of

future litigation. ‘The less said’

(School Principal, Response to open-ended item on

survey)

I would like more standardised assessment practices in this

school. I can see that I need to do some work in discussing

reporting with teachers.


survey)

Happy with what we are doing


survey)


125

One of the distinctive changes in educational policy landscape in

Ireland over the last decade has been the expectation that schools

articulate policies in written form in relation to key aspects of school

life. For example, the 1998 Education Act required schools to specify

policies on a range of matters including how they cater for students

with learning difficulties. Furthermore, the most recent ten-year

social partnership agreement (Towards 2016) has highlighted the

“importance of quality in schools, of school self-evaluation and of

the role school development planning plays in both, is central to

Modernisation in the Education Sector (SDPS website). In this context,

schools have been and are developing written policy statements on a

range school practices. The NCCA’s Assessment in the Primary School

(2007, p. 66) handbook for schools notes that under the 1998

Education Act schools are required to prepare a school plan:

The School Plan is a statement of the educational philosophy

of the school, its aims and how it proposes to achieve them. It

deals with the total curriculum and with the organisation of

the school’s resources… (Department of Education and

Science, 1999, p. 8)

In the section on policy, principals responded to five questions about

school policies and practices:

• Our school has a written policy statement on the use of report

cards (Yes/No)

• Our school has a written policy statement on parent teacher

meetings (Yes/No)

• Storage format of Report Cards

• For how long does your school store copies of the written report

cards issued to parents


126

• Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) vis-à-vis reporting

policies and practices

4.3.1 Written policies

Written policies on reporting and parent-teacher-pupil meetings.

Review of report card.

(School Principal, Response to question about areas that

school would like to prioritise vis-à-vis reporting

practices)

Key findings in this section in relation to school policies (n=141) are

organised under the following headings: written policy statements,

storage of report cards and induction of newly qualified teachers

(NQTs).

4.3.2 Written policy statements

• WRITTEN POLICY STATEMENTS: A majority of schools two

thirds (67%) of schools have a written policy statement on parent-

teacher meetings, whereas a minority, that is just over a quarter of

schools (28%), reported that they have a written policy statement

on the use of report cards.

4.3.3 Storage

• STORAGE OF REPORT CARDS: Almost all schools (99%) keep

a paper copy of report cards, and 86% of these are stored by class

group. Similarly, 83% also keep an individual cumulative record.

Less than one in ten schools (9.6%) store report cards electronically.

• STORAGE DURATION: Almost half (43%) of schools keep

report cards until the student is 21 years old. About a third (30%)

of schools keep this information until the student leaves post-

primary school, and less than a fifth (18%) keep records until the

student leaves primary school.


127

In relation to written policy statements, there is a considerable

difference between the number of schools with a written policy for

parent teacher meetings (two in three schools) compared to those

that have a written policy for report cards (just over one in four

schools). The matter of how long report cards and the extent to

which a more detailed pupil file are stored raises a range of policy

and logistical matters. The NCCA has noted in its guidelines on

primary school assessment (2007) that “schools store this information

safely to facilitate access to it by former pupils at any stage until their

twenty-first birthday” (p. 80) as this information could be requested

by schools under the Data Protection (Amendment) Act, 2003. The

finding that less than ten per cent of schools store report cards

electronically raises the question as to how new Information and

Communication Technologies (ICTs) might best serve the different

phases of schools’ reporting functions from generating report card

templates, sharing reports with designated colleagues in and outside

of the school as a long term storage and their retrieval of report

cards. In the context of teachers’ and schools’ role in gathering

evidence to support reporting, the material gathered as part of a

pupil file (e.g. class teacher’s notes, samples of student work and

previous report cards).

4.3.4 Induction of new teachers

• INDUCTION OF NQTs: The majority, that is almost half of the

schools (44%), reported that they utilise informal processes to

induct NQTs in relation to school reporting policies and

practices. Approximately a quarter (22%) induct NQTs about

reporting primarily using written documentation and just over a

quarter (29%) of schools use a designated teacher mentor to

induct NQTs.


128

Table 4.5: Induction for newly qualified teachers (n=141)

Rank % N

Informal information provided to NQTs by other teachers 1 55 103

Teacher designated to mentor NQTs re. reporting and parent-teacher meetings

2 36 67

Written documentation for NQTs about school’s reporting policies and practice

3 30 56

Other 4 4 8

Three forms of communication are widely used in informing NQTs

about reporting practices. Nevertheless, in relation to each mode of

communication, a significant number of schools do not utilise these in

the induction of NQTs.

In summary, research has highlighted the ways in which school leadership

(see for example O’Donoghue and Dimmock, 2002) can and ought to

play a key role in promoting a school-wide rather teacher-to-parent

approach to reporting practices. Indicative of the school-wide dimensions

of the school-wide dimension, is the issue of long term storage of report

cards, which in light of the NCCA’s 2007 guidelines on assessment,

presents a challenges not alone for schools but system-wide in terms of

the type of support, that is, technical advice on using ICTs for reporting

as well as guidance on developing a school strategy for archiving and

managing reporting data over an extended period (including guidelines

on destruction of data beyond an identified time point).

4.4 SchoolpracticEonrEporting:rEcording,rEport

cardSandothErwrittEncommunication

This section of the survey asked schools to respond the following six

questions:

1. What information (i.e., teacher notes, results of teacher made tests)

does your school keep as part of each child’s record of progress/

achievement? (Tick all that apply)


129

2. What information does your enter onto each child’s report card?

(Tick all that apply)

3. Does your school provide written reports of children’s progress to

parents?

4. What information do teachers currently report to parents in the

written report? (Please tick all relevant boxes)

5. What format is used on report cards? (Tick all that apply)

6. When are report cards sent to parents (Tick all that apply)

This section is organised under the following headings: recording,

provision of report cards, report card content, when report cards are

sent home and school practices to promote consistency in report

cards and enhance parent understanding.

4.4.1 Recording

Key findings related to current recording were as follows:

• RECORDING: Schools reported that the teachers record a

considerable range of information about children’s achievement,

learning and development.

• RECORDING: The information recorded by schools for internal

use in school is similar across the majority of schools and class

levels from Junior Infants to 6th class (see Table 4.6).

• RECORDING EMPHASIS: What schools record varies by topic

(behaviour, attendance…etc.) rather than by class level (see Table

4.6). The majority of schools reported (between 55% and 75%

depending on topic) that they record information about a range

areas of children’s learning and development: social and personal

development (53-55% approx., 98 and 105 schools depending on

class level), behaviour (60% approx., 111 to 118 schools


130

depending on class level), areas of learning difficultly and results of

standardised tests (55-65% approx., 101-124 schools). Fewer

schools (about 50%) record a mark of grade in each subject area

between 1st and 6th class and a smaller number (approx. 25%) do

so for Junior and Senior Infants. Results of more formal tests of

student learning, that is, grades/marks based on teacher made tests

as well as results of standardised tests, are typically recorded by

three quarter of schools from second class onwards.

In light of the recent NCCA guidelines on assessment for primary

schools, existing recording practices are of interest in that they

provide a basis for informing professional development to support

recording of various aspects of student learning and development

across the primary education system. While almost all the recording

categories provided were chosen by the majority of principals,

nevertheless there are a significant number of schools that appear not

to record information on a range of aspects of student learning and

development. Accepting that a variety of evidence, based on valid and

reliable recording, forms a necessary but not sufficient condition for

quality use of report cards and good parent teacher communication,

it would appear that there is scope for some schools to strengthen

their recording practices.


131

Table 4.6: Information kept as record of child’s development achievement

Junior Senior 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th

Social & PersonalDevelopment

10156%

9855%

9855%

10358%

10458%

10458%

10358%

10559%

Behaviour 11363%

11162%

11162%

11765%

11866%

11967%

11967%

11866%

Attendance 13575%

13173%

13475%

14179%

14279%

14179%

14078%

14078%

Grades or marks for each subject taught in each curriculum area

4224%

4626%

6838%

7643%

8648%

8849%

8950%

90950%

Areas of learning difficulty

10156%

11363%

11866%

12570%

12670%

12670%

12570%

12469%

Comments of learning, SEN, or resource teachers

8548%

10056%

10860%

11464%

11564%

12067%

11866%

11866%

Results/marks/grades of standardised tests (e.g. Drumcondra, MICRA-T, SIGMA-T)

6134%

9855%

13374%

14179%

14380%

14279%

14178%

14078%

4.4.2 Provision of written report card

Parent teacher meetings are invaluable. The report cards leave

too much open to interpretation e.g. for me writing ‘excellent’

means a child has done the best they can. For others it means

the results are excellent. I would much prefer report cards to

have room for explanation rather than ticking a box which is

why I prefer not to use the cards.


survey)

Discussion with parents is better than written reports

unexplained.


survey)


132

• DOES YOUR SCHOOL PROVIDE A WRITTEN REPORT?:

Five out of six schools (84%) provide a written report with just

under one in six (16%) of schools that responded to this item

reporting that they did not provide a written report of children’s

progress to parents. One hundred and fifty two schools (152 with

missing data from 35 schools) responded to this item.

• RURAL v URBAN DIVDE IN REPORT CARD

PROVISION: Cross-tabulation of location and whether schools

send report cards home or not indicated that rural schools are

significantly less likely to do so than urban schools (χ2 = 6.09, df

1, p < 0.01). That is, one in four rural schools do not send a

report card home, compared to one in twelve urban schools.

Conversely, three out of four rural schools send a report card

home compared to eleven out of twelve urban schools.

The vast majority of schools provide written report cards to parents.

However, a significant minority do not. From the perspective of the

number of children in primary schools (based on DES figures for

2005/06), 16% of schools corresponds to 75,000 students. Taking into

account the margin of error (plus or minus eight points), we can

estimate that between 8% and 24% of parents, that it, the parents of

between 37,500 and 112,500 children may not be receiving report

cards. These parents’ lack of access to written report cards on their

children’s progress in school limits their opportunities to actively

engage in their role of supporting children as learners, as well as their

capacity as citizens to fully engage with and utilise an important

public service in society. Furthermore, from the child’s perspective

children whose parents do not receive a report card miss out on an

important ‘reporting episode’ in the dynamic relationship between

schools, children and parents. As we noted in the context of the case

study interviews with children, they recalled the arrival and reading

of report cards in vivid detail and for many children the advent of


133

the report card home brought recognition (e.g. from parents,

grandparents), affirmation and rewards (e.g. trips, toys, clothes…etc.).

As noted in the two quotations opening this section, some schools

who do not complete report cards may provide other opportunities

for parents to hear about their child’s learning and development and

engage with teachers in supporting the learning process. It seems that

some schools (as indicated in the first quotation above), given what

they see as the limitations of unexplained report cards to convey

important issues to parents, may have decided to focus on parent

teacher meetings and other school-to-home communication as the

focus of their reporting practices.

4.4.3 Report card content

Sometimes it is far easier to report a weakness orally. Teachers

are very slow to write about a child’s weakness.


survey)

• REPORT CARD CONTENT: The majority of schools (more

than 2 in 3) reported that they communicate information on

report cards in three areas of children’s learning and development:

social and personal development, behaviour and attendance (see

Table 4.7). Fewer schools (between 33% and 50%) communicate

on the report card about marks/grades in each curriculum area.

Similarly, in relation to communicating on the report card about

standardised tests a smaller number of schools, that is, one in three

schools do so (approx. 33%).


134

Table 4.7: Information entered on child’s report card (count & percent)

Junior Senior 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th

Social & PersonalDevelopment

11062%

11062%

11363%

12067%

11967%

11866%

11866%

11765%

Behaviour 11464%

11564%

11866%

12469%

12670%

12670%

12570%

12570%

Attendance 11062%

11162%

11363%

12067%

12168%

12168%

12067%

12067%

Grades or marks for each subject taught in each curriculum area

4626%

5028%

6335%

7341%

8548%

8648%

8648%

8648%


9251%

9855%

10659%

11162%

11464%

11464%

11363%

11363%

Comments of learning, SEN, or resource teachers

4226%

5229%

5832%

6436%

6335%

6436%

6235%

6436%

Results/marks/grades of standardised tests (e.g. Drumcondra)

3017%

4123%

5732%

6335%

6235%

6436%

6436%

6436%

Report cards exhibit a strong similarity across class levels in with

more schools including information on social-personal development,

behaviour, attendance and areas of learning difficultly than in relation

to more formal report content such as marks/grades, tests results as

well as comments from teachers other than the class teacher. The

pattern of report card content evident here suggests that there is

scope for great use of narrative and numerical summaries of student

learning and achievement on report cards. Broadfoot (1990), in

critiquing the use of vague terminology on report cards and the lack

of links to standards (also see O’Donoghue and Dimmock, 2002)

noted that report cards often are couched in language and

phraseology that has a high ‘fog rating’.


135

4.4.5 When are report cards sent home?

Table 4.8: When schools report to parents using the written report (frequency)

During School Year

At End of Year

By Appointment

N % N % N %

Progress in subjects or curriculum areas 47 26 113 63 43 24

Social and personal development 46 26 109 61 43 24

The child’s strengths as a learner 54 30 105 59 40 22

Areas of learning difficulty 62 35 107 60 55 31

Areas of particular achievement 54 30 100 56 35 20

Children’s active participation in class work

51 29 104 58 37 21

Difficulties related to homework completion

56 31 89 31 55 31

Results of standardised tests 30 17 42 24 54 30

Ideas to help parents support their child’s learning

53 30 69 39 51 29

Child’s own input or comments 51 29 14 8 18 10

• TIMING OF WRITTEN REPORTS CARDS: Most

information is given to parents at the end of the year. School

reports appear to be sent to parents at the end of the year with

the greatest frequency Report cards are twelve times more likely

to be sent at the end of the school year than mid-year. The

exception is standardised test results which are given by

appointment (this was evident also in the case studies). This is

supported by results in Table 4. 7 which indicate that standardised

tests are included on report cards by about a third of schools.

• REPORT CARD FORMAT: In terms of the type of report

card, approximately of two out three schools use a commercially

produced report card and the remaining one third (except for a

1-2% depending on class level) use a school-produced report card.


136

That the end of the school year is the time when report cards are

sent supports the hypothesis that they are primarily summative rather

than formative in function and intent. That is, if report cards are sent

in late June to parents they are likely to create context for parent-

child communication that is more retrospective than prospective.

Furthermore, unless the child has the same teacher the following year

it is unlikely that parents/guardians or children will have an

opportunity to interact with the class teacher on issues noted in the

report card. In relation to report card format, we have included

examples of commercially- and school-produced report cards in the

Appendix 2.

4.4.6 Communicating about and supporting understanding of report cards and standardised tests

CONSISTENCY IN THE USE OF GOOD, FAIR

ETC. Good attendance means the child lost between 5-10

days all year. 70% + equals excellent. This means that there

will be consistency between the teachers. (School Principal,


We use comments and not grades and differentiating between

excellent and very good can be very problematic for us if all

teachers don’t buy into the agreed criteria!! (School

Principal, Response to open-ended item on survey)

• STRATEGIES FOR SUPPORTING SHARED MEANING:

Almost two thirds of schools (62%) employ procedures to support

grading consistency. Of these strategies, all staff meeting and

agreeing on terms used in the report card occurs in 45% of

schools. In a small number of schools teachers meet at class level

to discuss this (8%), and some have a school document which

outlines terms that should be used in report cards (10%). The

issue of shared meaning was one of the key issues raised by


137

teachers, principals and parents in the case studies. In this section

of the survey, schools indicated that the majority employ at least

one procedure to support the development of shared meaning in

relation to terminology on report cards. Nevertheless, a significant

minority of schools so not have any procedure to support the

development of shared meaning. As such, there appears to be

scope for schools to strengthen this aspect of reporting practice as

it is at the core of professional judgement component of

assessment (Harlen, 2006). The NCCA’s recent assessment

guidelines provides a context in which teachers may have greater

opportunities to develop shared meaning as they draw upon a

range of assessment evidence from across the continuum of

assessment from child- to teacher- led assessment tasks (p. 13).

• HELPING PARENTS UNDERSTAND STANDARISED

TESTS RESULTS: Almost two out of three schools (62%)

reported that teachers discuss results of standardised tests with

parents at parent teacher meetings, and just under two out of five

(37%) also reported that learning support, SEN or resource

teachers might also discuss tests results with parents (see Table

4.8). In less than quarter of schools principals discuss tests results

with parents.

Table 4.9a: How does your school help parents understand standardised tests (tick two)

N % Rank

Class teacher talks to parents during parent teacher meeting

126 62 1

Learning Support/SEN/Resource Teacher talk to parents

73 37 2

Principal talks to parents 36 24 3

Report includes a note or table explaining tables

13 19 4

Note or explanation on school website 0 1 5


138

Two key principles noted in the NCCA 2007 guidelines on

assessment for primary schools vis-à-vis reporting standardised tests

results was that this be undertaken in the context of other evidence

about the child’s learning and that it be reported in an intelligible

manner. The communication of such test results in an intelligible

manner implicates both narrative and numerical summaries of

student achievement (NCCA, 2007, p. 62). The recent publication of

support material for parents vis-à-vis interpretation of standardised

tests in the context of their child’s progress more broadly as a learner

is likely to change the nature of conversations for all involved in

discussing standardised tests (see NCCA leaflets for parents about

reporting on standardised tests - available online at www.ncca.ie).

• INFORMATION ABOUT TEST RESULTS: The majority of

schools indicated standardised test results are explained verbally at

parent teacher meetings by the class teacher (62%) (See Table 4.9).

STen scores and percentiles are used by 41% and 30% respectively

with standard scores (16%), written notes (9%), raw scores (7%)

and used much less frequently.

Table 4.9b: What kind of information is shared and how does your school help parents to understand standardised tests?

N % Rank

Verbally at PT meetings 125 67

1

STEN 77 41

2

Percentile 56 30

3

Standard scores 30 16

4

Written 16 9 5

Raw score 14 7 6


139

Table 4.9c: Overview of concepts associated with standardised test scores

NAME OF SCORE WHAT THE SCORE MEANS

Raw score This is a simple count of the number of items for which the child has supplied correct answers. It is of little use in reporting on a child’s performance.

Standard score Standard scores are transformations of raw scores, and usually range between 55 and 145, with an average of 100.

Percentile rank The percentile rank indicates the percentage of the relevant class or age group which has scored equal to or lower than this child’s score. It does not mean the percentage of test items the child answered correctly.

STen score STen scores are a ten-point scale with 1 representing the lowest category and 10 the highest. These are derived from standard scores.

SOURCE: NCCA, 2007, p. 61

• USE OF STUDENT JOURNALS/DIARIES FOR

REPORTING: seven out of eight schools (87%) of schools

reported that teachers use student journals or diaries to report to

parents.

• USE OF BEHAVIOUR REPORTING SYSTEM: Two out of

five schools (42%) operate a behaviour reporting system.

Cross-tabulations indicated that there was not a statistically significant

relationship between schools that employed a behaviour reporting

system and schools’ DEIS status (coded as in DEIS or not in DEIS)

(χ2 = 1.46, df 1, p = 0.23). However, cross-tabulation indicated that

there is a significant relationship between the use of a behaviour

reporting system and school location (χ2 = 4.62, df 1, p < 0.05).

Whereas one in two urban schools employ a behaviour reporting

system, only one in three rural schools do so. Allied with the earlier

finding that urban schools are significantly more likely to send a

report card home (see section 4.4.2), it appears that there are

significant differences in some key aspects of reporting practice

between urban and rural schools. Specifically, urban schools are more

likely to utilise two formal written reporting procedures (sending


140

report cards home and behaviour reporting system) compared to

rural schools. This difference is hard to explain but may be due to the

fact that most rural schools are smaller than urban schools and

informal reporting channels may be stronger in such settings.

• SATISFACTION WITH CURRENT REPORTING

SYSTEMS: When asked how much they agree on a scale of 1 to

5 with the following statement; ‘overall, we are pleased with our

current policies in reporting to parents’ most schools strongly

agreed.

4.4.7 Linguistic diversity and reporting to parents

• COMMUNICATING WITH PARENTS WHOSE FIRST

LANGUAGE IS NOT ENGLISH: When asked on a scale from 1

to 5 (strongly agreed) how they agreed with the following

statements: ‘In this school, the parents of ‘new’ immigrants provide

a significant communication challenge since their first language is

not English’ most teachers agreed (m = 3.55, SD = 1.20).

• COMMUNICATING WITH IMMIGRANT PARENTS

WHOSE FIRST LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH: When asked on a

scale from 1 to 5 (strongly agreed) how they agreed with the

following statements: ‘In this school, the parents of ‘new’

immigrants provide a significant communication challenge since

their first language is not English’; and ‘In this school, even when

parents of ‘new’ immigrants speak English, communication

challenges often arise due to differences in dialect and idiomatic

use of English’ most teachers agreed (m = 3.24, SD = 1.13).

• STRATEGIES USED TO COMMUNCATE WITH PARENTS

WHO DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH: A substantial number of

schools ask a primary aged student to communicate and the

majority as another parent/adult from that community to


141

communicate, as can be observed in Table 4.10 in terms of most

frequently used strategies with requesting parents or another adult

speaking that language to act as an interpreter as the most

frequently used strategy followed by asking children (of primary

age) to translate.

Table 4.10: In order to improve communication with parents who do not speak English the school has in the past year used the following strategies

Rank N

Asked a parent or other adult from that language community who speaks English to translate

1 54

Asked student (of primary age) from that language community who speaks English to translate

2 32

Asked student (of post-primary age) from that language community who speaks English to translate

3 7

Ask an Irish-trained teacher who speaks one or more required languages to assist in communicating with parents

4 7

Ask a non-Irish trained teacher who speaks one or more required languages to assist in communicating with parents

5 6

4.4.8 Fostering parental involvement

As noted earlier, we included items on how schools promote parental

involvement in children’s learning as a means of understanding

reporting practices in this wider school context.

• COMMUNICATING WITH PARENTS: A range of practices

for involving parents are employed by over 90% of schools:

schedule individual meetings with parents of students who are

having difficulty learning in school; give families information on

how to contact their child’s teacher at school; Regularly assign

students homework that requires them to talk with a family

member; offer parents or students library books to use at home;

Inform parents and students of progress and problems in student

diary/journal. Scheduling individual meetings with parents is


142

perceived as the most effective way to share information with

parents and involve them in their child’s learning (m = 3.86).

Least effective are workshops organised for parents during the

daytime/school hours (m = 2.28). Also, considered very

ineffective are requests to parents to tutor/support students in the

classroom (M = 2.32).

Table 4.11: Ways in which school shares information with and promote parental involvement

% used M

School provides information leaflet to all families on school policies and practices

57 3.67

School and/or Parents’ Association produces newsletter for families 84 3.48

Organise after school/evening meetings for parents on the primary curriculum and learning expectations

46 2.94

Conduct workshops for parents on curriculum areas and expectations during the daytime or school hours

17 2.28

Schedule individual meetings with parents of students who are having difficulty learning in school

99 3.86

Give families information on how to contact their child’s teacher at school

97 3.66

Issue certificates of achievement for students to take home that recognize their progress

66 3.33

Request parent to tutor/support students in the classroom 19 2.32

Invite parents and the community to school for student awards 46 2.89

Offer parents or students library books to use at home 96 3.60

Regularly assign students homework that requires them to talk with a family member

93 3.54

Offer videotapes on learning (e.g. literacy) that families can view at school or at home

49 2.94

Offer students and families curriculum-related activities learning activities/clubs after school

42 2.86

Involve parents of different backgrounds in various home-school activities

54 3.04

Organise visits to school by members of wider community 89 3.54

Inform parents and students of progress and problems in student diary/journal

96 3.70

SOURCE: Sheldon and Epstein, 2005 Note: 0 = not at all effective / very effective = 4 3.70


143

4.4.9 Satisfaction with and redesign of report cards

This section of the survey asked schools to respond the following

items their satisfaction with and ideas for re-designing report cards.

• SATISFACTION WITH REPORT CARDS: teachers are

satisfied with current report cards

• REPORT CARDS: input by learning support/SEN/resource

teacher should be included in report cards

• TEACHER SATISFACTION WITH CURRENT REPORT

CARDS: When asked on a scale of 1 to 5 (very satisfied) to

indicate their level of satisfaction with current report cards, most

teachers gave a positive response (M = 3.89, SD = 0.80).

• REDESIGNING REPORT CARDS: When asked to indicate

what themes would schools include if designing report cards,

most felt strongly the space for input by learning support/SEN/

resource teacher should be included. Also, as can be seen from

Table 4.12, many felt that space for student comment or an online

version would not be utilised.

Table 4.12: Themes your school would include if you were designing report cards for parents?

N Min Max M SD

Space for student comment 131 0 4 1.85 1.147

Space for parent comment 134 0 4 2.45 1.161

More space for comment on areas such as art, PE, drama

137 0 4 2.63 1.007

Space for input by learning support, SEN or resource teacher

140 0 4 3.36 .787

Create an online version that parents could check on the web

132 0 4 1.69 .974

Note: 0 = never include / 4 = always include


144

4.5 SchoolpracticEinrEporting:parEnt-tEachEr

mEEtingS

The contact between school and home is critical to the

development of the child. The time for it is a critical issue as it

must not take from teaching time. Sending written reports

without face to face follow up contact with parents is not very

effective. (School Principal, Response to open-ended

item on survey)

As we are a small school we find that we see the parents each

day and are therefore able to talk to them in an informal

manner about their child. Thus the parents are always well

informed to how their children are doing at school both socially

and academically. (School Principal, Response to open-


Meetings much more effective than written reports. (School


No appointment no meeting - Due to our increased pupil

numbers and in an effort to avoid the erosion of class teaching

time (School Principal, Response to open-ended item

on survey)

Most parents are generally positive when they receive reports

from the teachers. Parents know that the teachers have the best

interests of the children at heart and would like to see them

achieve their full potential. Parents are generally receptive to

constructive comment by the teachers. (School Principal,



145

This section of the survey addressed the following issues:

• Whether children are included when meeting with their parents

at parent-teacher meetings

• Who attends parent-teacher meetings

• Evaluation of how parents respond to hearing about aspects of

their children’s learning and development at parent-teacher

meetings

4.5.1 Parent-teacher meetings: Who and when?

• WHO ATTENDS PARENT TEACHER MEETINGS: it is

mothers rather than father or both parents that attend parent-

teacher meetings.

• SHOULD CHILDREN ATTEND PARENT-TEACHER

MEETINGS: A minority of schools (8%) thought that children

should participate at parent-teacher meetings.

Not surprisingly, it is mothers rather than fathers alone, or both

parents that attend parent teacher meetings. This finding points to

often taken for granted cultural dimensions of school-home

dynamics in which mothers (more so than fathers) are involved in

the emotional care work vis-à-vis children’s learning and

development in school. As O’Brien (2007) notes, based on her study

of mothers supporting their young adolescents in the transition from

primary to post-primary education, “mothers, irrespective of their

differences, are subject to a moral order of care that necessitates the

performance of a great deal of emotional work” (p. 159). As such,

while we in this report tend to use the term parents vis-à-vis the

micro-politics of reporting (as the education field does typically), yet

most of the reporting to parents is in fact reporting to mothers –

especially in the case of parent-teacher meetings.


146

Table 4.13: Who usually attends parent-teacher meetings?

N Min Max M SD

Mother attends 148 3 4 3.99 .116

Father attends 147 1 4 2.97 .619

Both parents attend 150 1 4 2.83 .689

Grandparent attends 142 1 3 1.58 .633

Pupil attends with parent 145 1 4 1.50 .800Note: 0 = never, 4 = always

4.5.2 Principals’ views of parent reaction to parent-teacher meetings

That some teachers won’t tell the negatives. Tend to be ‘too

nice’ to avoid conflict. Some parents only want to hear the

good news. More parents won’t accept that ‘their child’ can

misbehave. ‘Show me the evidence’! (School Principal,


Occasionally parents are very reluctant to accept the possibility

that a child may have a particular difficulty. In a small

community there can be fear of a stigma attaching to this and

the child being identified as being different. (School


Ensuring that parent kept informed without alarming them in

cases where child has severe educational needs. Getting time

with the few parents who make decision not to visit the school.


survey)


147

Table 4.14: Parents’ reactions to hearing about different aspects of their child’s learning and development

N Min Max M SD

Hearing about their child’s social and personal development

150 3 5 4.25 .695

Hearing about child’s strengths as a learner 149 3 5 4.64 .510

Hearing about child’s learning difficulties 148 2 5 3.57 .800

Hearing about their child’s progress in subjects or curriculum areas

150 3 5 4.28 .687

Hearing about ideas to help their child learning

148 0 5 4.36 .739

Hearing about difficulties related to homework completion

148 0 5 3.55 .890

Hearing about their child’s contentment at school

149 0 5 4.43 .799

Hearing about their child’s active participation in class work

149 0 5 4.46 .712

0 = very negative / 5 = very positive

• PARENT RESPONSE AT PARENT-TEACHER MEETINGS:

Parents respond positively to information shared concerning their

child’s learning and development, even if this information is

negative. When at the meeting, Table 4.14 indicates that most

parents respond in a positive fashion about all information shared

concerning their child’s learning and development (M = 4.64, SD

= 0.51). Parents respond least favourably to hearing about

difficulties related to homework completion (M = 3.55, SD =

0.89).

4.6 rEportingandlEarning:SchoolcompoSition,

parEntalinvolvEmEntandpErcEptionSoFEFFEctivE

involvEmEntandSchoolEFFicacy

4.6.1 Reporting, learning and school organisational practices

In order to address the question as to ‘how are school organisational

practices (e.g. Reporting and parental involvement among many


148

others) related to each other and to prediction of principals’

perceptions’ that their school can impact student learning, the

interrelationships between a range of observed and latent variables

were analysed. In order to contextualise this analysis, we draw on the

now extensive literature on efficacy which links perceptions of

individual and collective efficacy with student learning (Bandura,

2000). Teaching efficacy represents consequential beliefs teachers and

principals hold individually and collectively about the extent that

they can impact student learning. As such, in this study its use

provides an important conceptual and methodological link to student

learning.

Ross et al (2004), drawing on recent studies of collective efficacy in

schools, define collective teacher efficacy as ‘teachers’ perceptions that

they constitute an effective instructional team, capable of bringing

about learning in students” (Goddard, Hoy and Hoy, 2000, p. 480). As

such, efficacy in the context of teachers or other educators’ work can

be conceptualized as perceptions about the impact of teaching on

student learning. They cite previous research which has demonstrated

that a school staff with a strong sense of collective efficacy is likely to

generate high student achievement (Goddard, Hoy and Hoy, 2000).

Ross et al’s study of 2,170 teachers in 141 elementary schools used

structural equation modelling to examine the antecedents of

collective teacher efficacy. Their study found that prior student

achievement in grade 6 mathematics predicted collective teacher

efficacy, and that school processes which promoted teacher ownership

of school directions (shared school goals, school-wide decision

making, fit of plans with school needs, and empowering principal

leadership) had an even stronger influence on collective teacher

efficacy than prior student achievement. Ross et al’s study is

significant in that it points to the central role played by school

processes (of which we might hypothesize parental involvement

strategies as well as reporting practices are a part) in collective teacher


149

efficacy. For the purposes of this study on reporting, the choice of

principals’ perceptions of school efficacy as outcome variable allowed

us to analyse relationships between schools’ composition, school’s

strategies to promote parental involvement, schools’ perceptions of

the effectiveness of these involvement and related reporting practices

and principals’ perceptions of school efficacy. In assessing principals’

perceptions that their schools can impact student learning we

included 12-item (see Survey: Section 6 Impact on Learning)

collective efficacy measure which has in previous studies

demonstrated strong reliability (Cronbach alpha > 0.90) (Goddard,

2002). In our study the Cronbach alpha for the 12item scale was

more moderate at 0.75 but nevertheless sufficiently high to treat it as

a scale. Measures of parental involvement were based on items in two

16-item questionnaires (see Survey: Section 5) used by Sheldon and

Epstein (2005). The parental involvement questionnaire has sixteen

items on parental involvement and effectiveness of these parental

involvement strategies. In our study the Cronbach alpha was

moderate but acceptable in both instances (0.64 for the Involvement;

and 0.72 for Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Parental Involvement

Strategies).

4.6.2 Structural equation models

For the purpose of this analysing the relationships between reporting

practices and wider parental involvement in this study, the data were

analyzed with the use of the structural equation modelling software

AMOS 16. Structural equation modelling (SEM) is a statistical

technique that can be used in theory development because it enables

researchers to both propose and test theories about the

interrelationships among variables in multivariate settings (Heck,

Larsen, and Marcoulides, 1990). The use of such models is especially

helpful since it allows simultaneous examination of multiple

relationships without the concern of inflated alpha estimates. Some


150

additional advantages of SEM include the reduction of measurement

error by including multiple indicators per latent variable, the ability

to acknowledge and model error terms, as well as the ability to

concurrently test overall models rather than individual coefficients.

The structural equation model was analyzed with the maximum

likelihood estimation. The maximum likelihood estimation was

preferred to that of the generalised least squares estimation since it

leads to less biased parameter estimates and more accurate fit indices

(Olsson, Foss, Troye, and Howell, 2000).

The first step in examining the results of the SEM analyses includes

the examination of the fit criteria, to determine whether the

hypothesized model fits the data. The eight fit indices were taken

into consideration were those of the chi-square (χ2), the chi square

divided by the degrees of freedom ratio (χ2/df), the Normed Fit

Index (NFI), the Relative Fit Index (RFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index

(TLI), the Incremental Fit Index (IFI) the Comparative Fit Index

(CFI), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA). The cut-off criteria for the fit indices were based on Hu

and Bentler’s cut-off criteria (1999) (Table 1).

With the exception of the Relative Fit Index (RFI=0.808), which

was below 0.90, the rest of the indices fit the data quite well. More

specifically, the chi-square statistic was non significant (χ228=30.668,

p=0.332) indicating that there were no significantly differences

between the data and the model. The χ2/df also indicated a good fit

since its value was less than 2.5 (χ2/df=1.095).

The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA=0.023)

had a good fit since according to Hu and Bentler its values were

equal or less than 0.06. The Normed Fit Index (NFI=0.902), the

Incremental Fit Index (IFI=0.991), the Comparative Fit Index

(CFI=0.990), as well as the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI=0.980) had all


151

desirable values since indices whose values fall between 0.90 and 0.94

indicate a good fit, while indices equal or higher than 0.95 indicate a

very good fit.

Table 4.15: Fit indices of the structural model

Values

χ2 30.668 (p=0.332)

χ2/df ratio 1.095

CFI 0.990

IFI 0.991

NFI 0.902

RFI 0.808

TLI 0.980

RMSEA 0.023

Since the fit of the model has been established, the parameter

estimates can then be examined and interpreted. The standardised

parameter estimates of the model are presented in Figure 4.2 below.

These parameters indicate the amount by which each endogenous

(dependent) variable would change for every standardised unit of

change of an exogenous (independent) variable. In addition, the

numbers located on the top right side of each endogenous variable

reflect the proportion of the variance of that variable that is

explained by the model (R2).


152

Figure 4.2: Influence of school social composition, parental involvement perceptions of effectiveness of parental involvement strategies and reporting on principals’ perceptions of school efficacy

The standardised and unstandardised regression weights, along with

their standard errors are presented in Table 4.16. According to this

mode, only 7% of the variance of the principal’s perception of school

efficacy were explained. This small percentage was mainly explained

by the ‘school composition’ latent variable (ß=0.275, p=0.20). This

indicated that schools which had larger numbers of students,

including infants from other

ethnicities, as well as more language support and SEN teachers were

more likely for their principals to indicate higher levels of school

efficacy. The school composition variable also helped explain 16% of

the variable ‘school strategies for parental involvement’. So again,


153

schools with larger compositions (larger numbers of students,

including infants from other ethnicities, more language support and

SEN teachers) were more likely for their principals to indicate that

the schools have more strategies for parental involvement (ß=0.401,

p=0.000). In turn, schools with more strategies for parental

involvement had higher levels of ‘school’s perceptions of practices’

(ß=0.802, p=0.208).

Some of the correlations from this model that were also statistically

significant are the following; principals who reported that they were

pleased with the school’s reporting practices were also satisfied with

the school’s report cards (r=0.213, p=0.016). Also, as expected,

schools that had a larger intake of infants from other ethnicities also

had more language support teachers (r=0.514, p=0.013). Finally,

schools with more language support teachers had fewer SEN teachers

(r=-0.287, p=0.002).

The model presented in Figure 4.2 also includes three other paths

that have no statistical significance based on the results of this dataset.

First, the school composition has no effect on the school’s

perceptions of practices. Second, the ‘school’s perceptions of practices’

have no effect on the principal’s perceptions of school efficacy.

Finally, the results show that the ‘school strategies for parental

involvement’ variable also has no effect on the principal’s perceptions

of school efficacy. Therefore, overall only 7% of the variance of the

‘principal’s perceptions of school efficacy’ is accounted for by the

specific model. Consequently, different types of variables should also

be examined in order to determine the variables that can help

explain school efficacy.


154

Table 4.16: Standardized and Unstandardized path coefficients

Standardizedestimates

Unstandardizedestimate

P-value

School composition → SEN teachers .484 1.000 *

School composition → Number of students .765 91.095 0.000

School composition → Intake of infants of another ethnicit

.750 5.414 0.000

School composition → Language support teachers

.697 .646 0.000

School’s perceptions of practices

→ Pleased with reporting practices

.122 1.000 *


→ Effective parental involvement

.812 72.663 .208


→ Satisfaction with report cards

.207 2.121 .223


→ Communication challenge

.108 1.566 .417


→ Principal’s perceptions of school efficacy

.133 5.855 .758

School strategies for parental involvement

→ School’s perceptions of practices

.802 .022 .206

School strategies for parental involvement

→ Principal’s perceptions of school efficacy

-.148 -.212 .628

School composition → Principal’s perceptions of school efficacy

.275 .945 .020

School composition → School’s perceptions of practices

.025 .002 .852

School composition → School strategies for parental involvement

.401 .966 0.000

Measurement error (pleased with reporting practices)

↔ Measurement error (satisfaction with report cards)

-.287 -.481 .002

Measurement error (other ethnicity infants)

↔ Measurement error (language support teachers)

.514 2.277 .013

Measurement error (language support teachers)

↔ Measurement error (SEN teachers)

.213 .106 .016

* The paths for which no p-value is included are the paths which were set to 1 for creating the scale of the latent variables.


155

The structural equation modelling analysis, as we noted earlier,

provides a means of analyzing the inter-relationship of numerous

variables simultaneously. Given that the reporting as practice emerged

as a process closely linked and experienced by parents as part of their

overall relationship with schools, analysis of school composition,

parental involvement strategies, perceptions of effective parental

involvement and reporting strategies and their potential impact on

principals’ perceptions of school’s efficacy (i.e. potential impact on

student learning) facilitated analysis of links between dimensions of

reporting of relevance to educational policy. In the context of

understanding reporting in the wider context of school-parent

communications a number of insights form the model are

noteworthy. First, the non-significant relationships in the model are

important to note. Thus, the lack of significant relationship between

the latent variable ‘schools’ perceptions of effective parental

involvement strategies’ (which contributed to three reporting

variables, albeit a small contribution) raises questions about the

extent to which parental involvement exerts an influence on

principals’ beliefs that schools can influence student learning. We

might also hypothesise that the lack of influence from perceptions of

effective strategies (which included reporting variables) to school

efficacy may indicate that reporting does not play a part (at least

currently) in informing principals’ beliefs about school efficacy, that

is, their perceptions that schools can impact student learning.

With the advent, what the NCCA has termed, a ‘re-visioning of

assessment’ (2007, p. 6), which will have implications for reporting

practices, it is possibly or even likely that over time perceptions of

effective parental involvement (including reporting) might exert

stronger effect on individual and collective teaching efficacy of

teachers and principals. Second, the statistically significant

relationships (between school composition and involvement

strategies; between involvement strategies and ‘schools’ perceptions of


156

involvement and reporting strategies’) point to the wider set of

factors and school dynamics outside of reporting practices that exert

important and more powerful influences on learning and particularly

on efficacy beliefs. Third, as we noted in Chapter Four, this survey

focused on a particular set of variables related to reporting and

parental involvement cogniscent that other wider influences on

efficacy (e.g. as we noted earlier re Ross’s 2004 study) exist that

themselves may exert a more powerful impact on individual and

collective efficacy. Finally, given the summative function and intent in

reporting practices in Irish primary schools (e.g. report cards being

sent home at the end of the school year provides little opportunity

for their use in a formative manner) it is not that surprising, one

could argue, that influence between reporting practices (as part of the

latent variable ‘schools perceptions of involvement strategies’) and

efficacy might not be strong.

4.7 rEportingpracticESandpoliciES:SuccESSES,

challEngESandprioritiES

It is interesting to compare the findings from the case study schools

with those from the final section of the on-line survey, which

allowed respondents to bring up issues of concern and to add their

own comments. Many similar themes and concerns emerged to those

that emerged in the case studies, along with some additional ones.

For example, the issue of resources and the actual cost of producing

school reports, both financial and in terms of time, came up in the

survey. Additionally, in some schools, the report cards are added to

the book list, so that parents have to bear the cost.

4.7.1 Successful aspects of reporting: Views of principals

One hundred and forty two (n=142) principals responded to the

opened ended question: What do you think is the most successful feature


157

of your school’s reporting practice? A frequent comment, similar to those

in the case studies presented in Chapter Three, was the importance of

open and regular communication with parents, so that nothing in the

end of year report came as a shock to the parents. Newsletters and

homework journals were mentioned frequently as an important

means of communication between home and school. Schools were

especially conscious of their partnership with parents of children

with special educational needs, in drawing up IEPs and in following

up on these. The majority of principals referred to their school

having an ‘open door’ policy, although evidence both from the survey

itself and from the case studies shows that this have a very different

meaning in different settings. In summary, from the perspective of

principals the open, positive and ongoing nature of communication

between the school and parents is viewed as the most successful

dimension of reporting to parents as illustrated by the following

selected quotations:

That the teachers are always available to meet with parents to

discuss their child’s progress. We have established a good

rapport with them.

Constant communication between school and parents

Teachers and parents willing to communicate and meet

regarding their children

Individual meetings with parents and regular contact with

parents.

Parent-teacher meetings and meetings by appointment either by

parent or teacher.

We have a lot of contact with parents. We usually have 100%

attendance at PT meetings.


158

An open door policy re parents contacting, vice versa, re. pupils’

difficulties. Availability of teachers to talk through problems

and give advice where possible.

A significant minority of principals mentioned the importance of the

arrangement via an appointment system. As illustrated in the

following quotation (typical of many made in this section of the

survey), as evident in the case studies also, many schools appear to

have a certain predictable pattern in place with regard to how

reporting is enacted over the school year:

All parents have the opportunity to speak with the class

teacher early in the year at PT meeting. They also receive a

written report at the end of the school year. A meeting is

possible with every teacher provided an appointment is made.

The actual or potential role of new Information and Communication

Technologies (ICTs) was not mentioned often by principals;

nevertheless the following quotation illustrates the way in which

ICTs provide new means of reporting to parents albeit in the context

of the use of conventional means of communication such as

homework notebooks and parent teacher meetings:

Regular dialogue is encouraged outside of formal report card

and formal PT meeting. Good communication systems,

homework notebook, telephone and email

4.7.2 Challenging aspects of reporting: Views of Principals

One hundred and thirty three (n=133) principals responded to this

opened ended question: What is/are the greatest challenge(s) your school

experiences in relation to reporting to parents? A number of key challenges

were reported by principals, and these can be summarised under the

following headings:


159

• Mediation of written reports and results of tests

• Managing the reporting process from a school perspective

• Parents issues: Demands on their time and active participation by

parents

Mediating written reports and results of tests

When you have to inform them that their child has learning

or behavioural or social difficulties

It is often very difficult to know how much of the information

which is relayed is actually being taken on board. This can

vary greatly according to the educational and social awareness

of the parents.

Putting results in context regarding child’s ability rather than

entry requirements to a preferred second level school. Teachers

are sometimes asked to change previous reports for secondary

school, e.g. Change ‘very good’ to ‘excellent’.

In relation to mediating written report cards including results of tests

principals noted a number of key challenges as follows:

• Ensuring that parents and teachers reach a common

understanding of the terms used.

• Various difficulties - language, cultural differences, education level

of parents, the use of jargon, possible misunderstanding of grades

or terms used- does “excellent” refer to effort, progress or results

of tests?

• Explaining terms used in reporting on standardised tests, e.g.

STEN score


160

• Importance of face-to-face meetings to eliminate possible

misunderstandings and to get the parent’s perspective.

• Development of IEPS involves parents from early stages of

planning for student learning and keeps them informed of

progress

Managing the whole process of reporting from a school per-spective

• Report card format, time demands and shared meaning -finding

time to compile reports,

- deciding on the format of the report

- written/oral, pre-set form, teacher or school generated,

- ensuring consistency between teachers in use of terms like

Good, Fair.

• Administration; time, cost (of printing, posting, processing)

retaining/storing reports.

• Legal requirements/fear of litigation.

• Reporting on Standardised tests - understanding results, STEN

scores etc. Deciding whether or not to report child’s place in class.

• Inputs- from parents, from SEN/ resource teachers, from children.

Parents’ issues: Demands on their time and nature of partici-pation by parents

Lack of parental interest due to social issues

Availability of parents to meet. Parents not reading newsletters,

notes, comments in journals.


161

Members of the travelling community do not attend meetings.

Help from Visiting Teacher sought and used. Members of the

new communities from EU and Non-EU countries find it

difficult to understand results and the Irish school system in

general.

• Parents’ difficulties in attending meetings- timing, cultural/

personal alienation or apparent indifference to child’s progress at

school.

• Ensuring/facilitating follow-up by parents of issues raised.

• Parents not reading notes, newsletters, reports (or teachers unsure

whether they do or not).

• Parents comparing results. Pressure on children to achieve high

grades.

A common theme expressed by principals was the importance of

teachers meeting parents face-to-face, and of ensuring that parents

understand what written reports mean. Schools also faced a number

of policy decisions on reporting: Who has an input into the report

card? What format will be used? Is there consistency across the

school?

4.7.3 Priorities in developing reporting practice: Views of principals

User-friendly downloadable administrative package for all

schools to include electronic storage of ‘report card’.

Feedback suggests that all parties are satisfied with reporting

practice.

Greater consistency in and understanding of grading

‘Excellent’, ‘Very Good’ etc.


162

A consistent language across the levels

Personally, I think two parent/teacher meetings in the year

would be very useful - one in the first term to explain the plan

for the year and the other around Easter to evaluate.

We would like to develop a more comprehensive report card.

I would like to prioritise the reform of our school report system

Sending out children’s reports at least 4 weeks before summer

holidays and given parents an opportunity to discuss any issue

that may arise regarding their child.

Develop a personalised formal report form for the school rather

than the Folens/Fallons version. Include some of the criteria

that was highlighted in the survey. Pupil comment, parent

comment etc...

129 principals responded to the open-ended question: what would

you like to prioritise in developing your school’s reporting practice?

These 129 comments mainly focused on three themes (mainly the

first two themes)

• Development of shared meaning and consistency in terminology

• Improving the structure and ‘streamlining’ assessment and

reporting practices including changes to report cards,

arrangements for parent teacher meetings

• Provision of input by others in addition to the class teacher e.g.

SEN teacher, students.


163

4.8 concluSion

In concluding this chapter on the survey component of this study, we

want to emphasise the range of challenges identified in relation to

reporting including, in particular in relation to two aspects of

communication: (i) communication with increasingly diverse families,

and (ii) as well as difficulties of ensuring key terms are understood on

report cards and in relation to standardised test results. Both of these

issues are likely to provide increasing challenge in the future as the

school population becomes more diverse and assessment practices

development (NCCA, 2007) and reporting practices in turn change

based on new approaches to learning, teaching and assessment. As the

NCCA noted in the opening chapter of Assessment in the Primary

School Curriculum: Guidelines for Schools, the 1999 Revised Primary

School Curriculum addressed assessment in general terms (NCCA,

2007, p. 8). The 2007 guidelines sought to provide more specific

direction grounded in recent developments in relation assessment

policy and research, to inform the entire assessment cycle – including

reporting.

The online survey about reporting to parents in primary school,

based on a stratified nationally representative sample (45% response

rate), provides an overview of schools’ current practices and

perceptions vis-à-vis reporting across different types of schools. The

survey component of this study illustrates the commonality as well as

the diversity of practices; the challenges faced by schools addressing

needs of diverse students and families; and strategies employed to

address reporting on a school wide basis. Among the main findings of

the survey are the following:

• Two out of three schools have written policy on parent teachers

meetings, whereas as one in four has one on use of report cards.

• The overwhelming majority of schools keep records of a range of

topics related to children learning and development.


164

• The overwhelmingly majority of schools provide written report

cards about children’s progress to parents although surprisingly

almost one in six do not provide written report cards.

• Almost half of schools keep report cards until its students are

twenty-one years of age, one in three do so until student is

eighteen and one in five do so until student

• leaves primary school. In light of recent legislation on reporting

responsibilities of schools, there is a need to provide schools with

both policy guidance in this area, and technical support to create

appropriate records management processes in place.

• Most schools provide written report cards to parents about

children’s progress at the end of the school year:

- Three out of four rural schools provide a written report card

to parents whereas eleven out of twelve urban schools do so.

As such, there was statistically difference between rural and

urban schools.

• Where standardised tests results are communicated to parents this

is typically undertaken in person by the class teacher and

sometimes also resource, SEN and/or learning support teacher

rather than via written report on these tests on the report card.

• Schools with students whose parents do not speak English and

who speak a different dialect of English pose a significant

communication challenge for schools.

• In schools that draw on the translation skills of those in the

community, they typically draw on parent/adult from that

linguistic community and also a primary age pupil from that

community.


165

• There are statistically significant differences between rural and

urban schools in relation to two aspects of reporting: (i) rural

schools are less likely to send a written report card home; and (ii)

urban schools are more likely than rural schools to utilise

behaviour reporting system.

• In a structural equation model of key variables in this survey,

there were significant relationships between (i) school

composition and parental involvement strategies, (ii) parental

involvement strategies and latent variable ‘perceptions of

involvement and reporting strategies’; (iii) and school composition

and principals’ perceived school efficacy. Based on these findings,

reporting practices (as currently organised) do not influence

principals’ perceptions of whether their school can have an impact

on student learning (school efficacy).

• The vast majority of schools thought that children views should

not be included on report cards nor did they think that children

should be included in parent teacher meetings.

• Principals identified three areas in which they thought reporting

practices were especially successful: ongoing, open-door policy

and practice in relation to communication with parents.

• Principals identified three areas in which schools face challenges

in relation to reporting: (i) Mediation of written reports and

results of tests; (ii) Managing the reporting process from a school

perspective; and (iii) Parents issues: Demands on their time and

active participation by parents.

• In seeking to ensure some clear communication in relation to the

meaning of key terms used on report cards by schools, teachers

and also SEN/learning support teachers supplement the report

card with communication at parent teacher meetings.


166

As we noted in Chapter One and the Introduction to this chapter,

O’Donoghue and Dimmock (2002) developed propositions for

enhancing reporting practices pertain to four domains, which we

think are key to enhancing reporting practices: leadership, learning,

communication and teacher professional development.

Among the areas where we note recommendations in the final

chapter of this report growing out of this chapter are the following:

(i) Leadership (policy formulation; records management: storage,

security, timing of report cards and the role of ICTs in storage); (ii)

Learning (student involvement and voice in the reporting process;

cultural diversity vis-à-vis newcomers, urban v rural differences in

reporting practices; (iii) School communication (frequency of report

cards; PT meetings); and (iv) Teacher professional development (issues

noted above in relation to leadership, learning and communication all

have implications for teacher professional development.


167

c h a p t E r F i v E :

S u m m a r y a n d

r E c o m m E n d a t i o n S


168

5.1 introduction

This chapter begins with a summary of the main findings of the case

studies and survey and it then goes on to draw out the implications

and recommendations for policy and practice in light of recent

developments in primary assessment policy13 (NCCA, 2005; NCCA,

2006; NCCA, 2007).

5.2 FormalrEportingpoliciESandpracticES

1. All our case study schools have clear procedures in place for

reporting to parents although not all have a written policy. The

questionnaire survey shows that approximately one in four schools

(28%) of schools have a written policy on the use of School

Reports and approximately two out of three schools (67%) have a

written policy on parent-teacher meetings.

2. A School Report is prepared for each child in our case study

schools and sent to parents annually towards the end of the school

year. They tend to follow a standard commercially-produced

format and contain a space for a brief comment in relation to

every subject of the curriculum, other aspects of learning and

schooling, specifically social development, attendance, homework,

and general attitude to learning. Teachers say that they draw on a

wide range of information in writing their reports, from their

own observations in class to results of assessments, including

standardised tests, and homework. The thrust of this evidence is

confirmed by the survey in relation to recording and report card

content. Of significance in the survey however is that while 5 out

of 6 schools reported that they do send written report cards to

parents approximately 1 in 6 schools14 reported that they do not

13 NCCA (2005). Reporting children’s progress in primary schools: Background paper. Dublin: Author. NCCA (2006). Draft Report Card Templates Overview: Information for Schools. Dublin: Author. NCCA (2007). Assessment in the Primary School Curriculum: Guidelines for Schools. Dublin: Author

14 As noted above there is a margin of error associated with this estimate. Due to the lower than hoped for response rate, the margin of error is plus or minus 8 points.


169

provide parents with a written report. Furthermore, there was a

statistically significant difference between rural and urban schools

in provision of report cards. Three out of four rural schools

provide a written report card to parents whereas eleven out of

twelve urban schools do so. In terms of the type of report card,

approximately of two out three schools use a commercially

produced report card and the remaining one third (except for a

1-2% depending on class level) use a school-produced report card.

3. Teachers and principals are very concerned to represent children’s

learning positively and honestly in school reports and in meetings

with parents. This is captured by the expression of one principal,

‘nothing should come as a surprise’. Teachers and principals

expressed their concern of the potential negative impact on

children of critical reports. They are also wary of writing down

their interpretations of children in too much detail, preferring to

discuss issues in face-to-face settings. The majority of schools keep

school reports for many years after pupils have left the school.

Over 2 in 5 schools (43%) store report cards until the child is 21

years of age (consistent with NCCA’s 2007 assessment guidelines

for schools, p. 80), one third of schools store report cards until the

child has left post-primary education and one in five schools keep

report card until the child leaves primary school.

4. All six case-study schools arrange a parent-teacher meeting

annually, typically in the middle of the Autumn term. One school

schedules this meeting in the summer term after the school report

has been sent out and this then provides a focus for the meeting.

The standard format is for teachers to be available on a particular

afternoon/evening and for parents to be offered a slot of about 15

minutes during which they, usually the mother, has a one-toone

meeting with the child’s teacher/or with the learning resource

teacher if the child has special educational needs. Some schools


170

are more creative in seeking to accommodate parents making

themselves available to meet with parents from 7.30 every

morning for several weeks. Teachers report that this practice

increases the incidence of fathers’ attendance at meetings and it is

highly appreciated by parents.



children’s progress, to communicate their learning strengths and

weaknesses, and help in identifying ways of supporting their

child’s learning at home. While they are sensitive to the need to

engage with what parents think is important, our evidence

generally suggests that teachers operate this forum as one in

which they are in telling and explanation mode and parents are

listening. The short time frame for these meetings would seem to

focus minds on progress from the teacher’s perspective. The

impression our evidence gives is that other, more informal

occasions are assumed to cater for issues that do not pertain

directly to children’s progress.

6. Teachers and principals perceive that parents are the main

audience for the School Report and, while they are kept in

school and are accessible to teachers, they do not typically consult

them when they get new children/class.

7. For schools a major challenge to effective reporting practice is

perceived to be linguistic diversity or more specifically the fact

that increasing numbers of parents and children do not have

adequate English to participate fully in the reporting procedures.

This is confirmed by the questionnaire data where principals

reported that parents who do not speak English or who may have

difficultly communicating in English agreed or strongly agreed

that this represents “a significant communication challenge”.


171

While schools in our case study sample vary in the scale of this

challenge and in how they are addressing it, a common response

is the use of community members as translators.

8. The range of languages spoken by parents of newcomer children

is perceived by responding principals as providing a significant

communication challenge for schools. In responding to this

communication challenge schools rely mainly on two strategies:

to ask a parent or other adult from that language community who

speaks English to translate (just under a third of schools) and/or

to ask a student (of primary age) from that language community

who speaks English to translate (1 in 6 schools)

5.3 othErrEportingmEchaniSmS

9. Schools also use and value a range of other ways of reporting to

parents including homework journals/diaries (2 out of 3 schools),

tests (e.g. weekly spelling tests) and 2 out of 3 schools report that

they use a behaviour reporting system (e.g. star system for

discipline). There was a statistically significant difference between

rural and urban schools in the use of behaviour reporting system.

Two in three urban schools employ such a system, whereas only

one in three rural schools do so. One multi-ethnic school’s

exceptional approaches to involve and communicate with parents

about children’s learning include bi-weekly newsletters, coffee

mornings, food fairs and other inter-cultural events. In addition,

all our case study schools define themselves as operating an ‘open

door’ policy in relation to parents, meaning that they are regularly

accessible to parents and have frequent conversations with parents

informally as they bring and collect children to and from school.

The latter was reported as being especially the case for children in

the early years of school and for those with special educational

needs.


172

5.4 rEportingonStandardiSEdaSSESSmEntS

10. While schools do administer a range of tests and assessment

procedures, typically reading assessments in infant classes and

standardised tests (i.e. Drumcondra Achievement Tests, MICRA-T

or SIGMA-T) in middle and upper levels, schools tend not to

forward assessment information in the form of test results to

parents. Most schools interpret the results of assessments,

particularly standardised assessments, and communicate their

interpretations to parents in parent-teacher meetings. The case

studies and the survey show that results of standardised tests tend

to be given to parents only by appointment. When results are

communicated to parents this is done typically by the class

teacher in 2 out of 3 schools, by the learning support or resource

teacher (1 in 3 schools) and by the principal in 1 in 6 six schools.

5.5 outcomESandExpEriEncES:lEarnErSandparEntS

11. School reports and parent-teacher meetings are very significant

events for learners, their occurrence engendering a wide range of

emotions from anxiety to excitement and from pride to

disappointment. No child interviewed was indifferent. Our

evidence confirms the deep interest children have in their own

learning, many expressing the wish to attend and contribute to

the parent-teacher meeting. Most expressed mature views about

what they believe is absent from or inadequately detailed in the

current reporting structure, namely, sport, drama, music and art.

Some pupils expressed an interest in having more information

about how to improve their learning.

12. Children deemed to have special educational needs (SEN)

experience higher levels of assessment and are reported on in

more detail and more frequently than their peers not so specified.

Parents of children with special educational needs have more

contact with schools about their children’s progress


173

13. Our evidence points to more variation among parents than

among teachers/schools in how they interpret their opportunities

to find out about their children’s learning and in their general

satisfaction with the process of reporting. There is also more

variation across parents.

14. While many parents we interviewed expressed the most positive

views about their experience of school reports and meetings,

particularly those in one multi-ethnic school, others are less

satisfied and do not experience their schools as quite as accessible

as the schools describe and perceive themselves to be. Our data

suggests a class divide here with parents associated with schools

serving middle class catchments being very much more satisfied

about their understanding of their children’s progress than their

counterparts associated with schools serving lower socio-

economic groups. Many of the latter parents (and some of the

former) expressed uncertainty about the meaning of terms on

school reports, of test results and generally of curriculum and

assessment issues. They are more reluctant to question teachers

and seek clarification on issues, seeing themselves as potentially

disturbing teachers’ work by seeking such help. They are also

dissatisfied with the timing and amount of time allocated to

parent-teacher meetings feeling that they are too infrequent, too

short and not sufficiently flexibly scheduled.



children’s progress, to communicate their learning strengths and

weaknesses, and help in identifying ways of supporting their

child’s learning at home. While they are sensitive to the need to

engage with what parents think is important, our evidence

generally suggests that teachers operate this forum as one in

which they are in telling and explanation mode and parents are


174

listening. The short time frame for these meetings would seem to

focus minds on progress from the teacher’s perspective. The

impression our evidence gives is that other, more informal

occasions are assumed to cater for issues that do not pertain

directly to children’s progress.

16. While teachers acknowledge, to some extent, the problematic of

sharing meanings of evaluations of children’s learning, parents are

more concerned than teachers about the lack of common

understandings. The survey results show that schools have some

strategies in place to address this issue: some 45% claim to have

staff meetings to agree terms used in the school report.

17. Analysis of the survey data suggests that reporting practices (in the

context of current practice in assessment and reporting) do not

influence principals’ perceptions that schools can impact student

learning. Situating reporting practices in the context of the model

of parental involvement, school composition and learning and

indicates principals in schools with large numbers of students as

well as more SEN students and language support teachers, with

higher intake of students from another ethnicity were more likely

to indicate (i) higher levels of parental involvement (ii) have

higher expectations that their school could impact student

learning.

5.6 diScuSSionOverall, the evidence suggests that schools adhere broadly to DES

guidelines on reporting and good practice. Nevertheless the evidence

points to areas that merit further development: consistency in

assessment, recording and reporting practices; more involvement of

parents and learners in the assessment and reporting processes, and a

stronger emphasis on the formative functions of reporting.


175

In this discussion we note key overarching themes: discontinuities,

participation formats and equity. The discontinuities between the

schools’ ‘open door’ policy of parental accessibility and parents’

experience of accessibility to school meanings of learning success,

failure, achievement, progress stem fundamentally from inadequate

opportunities available to some parents to get on the inside of those

constructs and make them their own in the context of their

particular school’s practices. How can parents, as interested, caring

people, but also as outsiders to the routines and practices of the

school, come to know and understand, at some meaningful level, the

practice of assessing and evaluating learning that goes on in school?

What are they to make of such terms as ‘good’, ‘excellent’ etc and

how are they to interpret a phrase like ‘improving’ on a report card

when they have little or no access to the language/terminology,

practices, routines, models, criteria, or exemplars that might support

their negotiation of meanings? In addition, how can they use such

understandings and constructions to support the education of their

children, in partnership with the school - the rationale put forward

for the practice of reporting on children’s learning to parents in the

first place?

As our evidence showed, some parents cope with such issues much

better than others and unsurprisingly they seem to be the ones

whose cultural capital is aligned and attuned to the practices of the

school. This is not new; previous research has demonstrated exactly

this over and over. Such parents are more likely to have experienced

themselves as successful in school, to have been able to exploit the

resources of the education system to enhance their and their

children’s status, wealth, and symbolic capital (including negotiating

powers) in the world. Their life experiences equip them to be able to

negotiate their meanings in the school-home enterprise of reporting,

to have their issues and concerns addressed, and so to develop even


176

further continuities between what is valued at home and what is

valued in school.

The annual parent-teacher meeting with its very structured (perhaps

rigid) participation format, heavily dictated by the constraints of time

limits the dialogue that can take place about a child’s achievements

and weaknesses. To open up their practices, to give access to the

culture of assessment and judging success in learning, parental

understanding of comments, grades, etc. and their significance and

relevance have to be considered. Such understandings can’t be

assumed to be easily read off from Reports sent to parents at the end

of the year, nor can a learner’s progress be adequately described to all

parents in one brief encounter once a year. This is recognised, at one

level, by the emphasis teachers place on ongoing, informal contact

with parents but simultaneously denied, we suggest, by the

assumption that it can be done on the run in moments stolen on

corridors at the beginning or end of the school day.

We suggest that many parents would appreciate and benefit from

more regular contact with schools during which they have the

chance to see and discuss samples of children’s assessed work

annotated perhaps with reference to the context of its production, to

discuss the meaning and partiality of marks and grades and the

contexts of assessments as well as their outcomes. Having insights

into the processes of assessment evidence construction and the

criteria against which work is judged would support parents in

becoming more competent in participating in reporting event on

their terms. Rubrics, portfolios, profiles, evidence in a variety of

modes, mini case studies of a learner’s trajectory, and other

exemplification material are all features that could be used in

dialogue with parents about children’s learning, the intention being

to provide them with props and supports for understanding accounts


177

of achievement, portrayals of where learners are, where they need to

get to, and crucially, elaborations of how to get there.

Schools and teachers that share such practices and experiences with

parents, and indeed with other school staff develop communities of

assessment practice, but such schools also need to be supported by a

whole-school policy as well as the broader policy context nationally

(Hall and Harding, 2002). Previous research in the Irish context on

parents’ understandings of assessment highlighted their (unjustified)

faith in the results of objective tests – faith in number- and their

dubiousness on the other hand about teacher ‘opinion’ (Hall and

Kavanagh, 2002). In the absence of exemplars and some concrete

exemplification of teachers’ professional judgements about learners’

progress, parents are thrown back on the test as the only point of

evidence and as a measure in which they can have some faith. If

assessment for learning is to be meaningful for learners and parents

then it is likely that creative ways of capturing learning will have to

be applied and shared with them and among teachers themselves.

At a practical level, how might one explain the divergence in

perspective across teachers and parents? We would suggest that

teachers feel themselves as open and available to teachers because

they are in contact with parents so frequently, in many cases on a

daily basis. However, they may be in regular contact with just a

selection of parents and many teachers may only have contact with

teachers through the annual parent-teacher meeting and the school

report, which given their current format, are likely to be inadequate

to enable the kind of negotiation of meaning that would extend their

capacity to understand their children’s learning, let alone support it.

Schools need to be much more vigilant regarding parents who may

feel peripheral to it and who may as a result marginalise themselves

further by not availing of what is currently on offer.


178

5.7 rEcommEndationS

As we noted in Chapter One, O’Donoghue and Dimmock (2002)

advance four propositions for enhancing reporting practices. These

pertain to leadership, learning, communication and teacher

professional development. Together these support the identification of

recommendations that emerge from evidence from our case study

and survey data and point to the need for a multi-pronged approach

to addressing the key issues. It is not simply the domain of one group

e.g. individual teachers or even continuing professional development.

Rather it involves system as well as more local interventions and

teacher education as well as physical resource input.

1. A key recommendation emerging from the evidence is that

parents need more opportunities to negotiate the meaning of

accounts of their children’s learning. Terms like ‘fair’ and

‘excellent’ and assessment results need to be better interpreted and

contextualised for parents so that meanings are opened up and

better understood. We recommend that policy makers and school leaders

consider the necessary school structures and professional contracts that

would enable greater parental participation in assessment and reporting.

2. A key finding was that a small but significant minority of schools

do not send written report cards home. As such, parents of

children in those schools are missing out on an opportunity to

learn about their children’s progress in school. We recommend that

all schools be required to send a written report card to parents.

3. We recommend that schools should send a mid-year Report to parents

about their children’s learning and that this Report that would provide

the basis for learner and parental conversation and commentary. This

would ensure that School Reports serve a formative (as well as a

summative) purpose.


179

4. We recommend that Whole School Evaluations explicitly attend to the

reporting dimension of school policy and practice.

5. In light of the strategies adopted by schools (asking parents, other

adults of primary age children to translate) to communicate with

parents who either do not speak English of have difficulty

communicating in English, we recommend that guidelines be

developed, and where necessary additional resources beyond those currently

available be provided, to support schools in such work.

6. With reference to the new emphasis on assessment for learning

and on the increased emphasis on assessment and reporting more

generally, we recommend that schools have the opportunity to engage in

within-school, across-school, and especially within-level/class professional

dialogue about evaluations of children’s learning. We also recommend that

schools have the opportunity to develop exemplars that would support the

production of narrative accounts of children’s learning that are trustworthy.

Such initiatives could offer a way of extending shared perspectives

about what constitutes ‘excellent’ etc. achievement in various

curricular areas.

7. In the context of policy expectation that schools utilise

standardised tests to assess students (DES/Circular 0138/2006)15

we recommend that further guidance be provided that supports teachers

(class, special needs and resource) and principals in communicating the

results of such tests in a meaningful manner in the context of other

evidence of student learning and achievement.

8. In the light of the demands for assessment data recording and

storage, we recommend that robust and reliable record storage systems be

developed to support school’s ability to record, store and retrieve assessment

data for different audiences and purposes.

15 DES (2006). Supporting Assessment in Primary Schools: Circular 0138/2006. Dublin: Author


180


181

r E F E r E n c E S


182

Ames, C., de Stefano, L., Watkins, T. and Sheldon, S. (1995). Teachers’

school-to home communications and parent involvement: The role of parent

perceptions and belief Report No. 28. Center on Families,

Communities, Schools and Children’s Learning, Johns Hopkins

University, Baltimore, MD. Summary of report also at http://www.

educ.msu.edu/reports/edresearch/1997/october6.htm

Asssessment Reform Group (1999). Assessment for Learning: Beyond the

black box. British Educational Research Association

Bastiani, J. and White, S. (2003). Involving parents, raising achievement.

Department of Education and Skills. Accessed January 2008 at

http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=5477

Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective

efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78.

Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998) Inside the Black Box. Assessment in

Education, 5(1), 774

Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998b) Inside the Black Box: raising

standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (20).

October 1998.

Blair, M. and Bourne, J. (1998) Making the difference: teaching and

learning strategies in successful multi-ethnic school. Accessed October 2007

at http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/parentalinvolvement/pics/pics_

multiethnic_me nu/

Bond, L. A. (1996). Norm- and criterion-referenced testing. Practical

Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 5(2). Retrieved January 31, 2008

from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=5&n=2

Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in Education,

Society and Culture, 2nd edition. London: Sage


183

Broadfoot, P. (1999). Reporting to parents on student achievement: the UK

experience. Working papers on public education, Vol 2. Victoria: State

Board of Education.

Broadfoot, P. and Black, P. (2004) ‘Redefining assessment? The first

ten years of assessment in education’, Assessment in Education:

Principles, Policy & Practice, 11:1, 7 - 26

Conaty, C. (2002). Including All: Home, School and Community United in

Education. Dublin: Veritas.

Council for the Curriculum Examinations & Assessment (Northern

Ireland). Assessment for learning. Accessed January 2008 at

http://www.nicurriculum.org.uk/assessment_for_learning/index.asp

Crozier, G. and Davies, J. (2007). Hard to reach parents or hard to

reach schools? A discussion of home–school relations, with particular

reference to Bangladeshi and Pakistani parents. British Educational

Research Journal. Vol. 33, No. 3, June 2007, pp. 295–313

Cuttance, P. and Stokes, S. (2000). Reporting on student and school

achievement. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth

Affairs. Accessed January 2008 at http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/

school_education/publications_resources/profiles/ student_school_

achievement_report.htm

Dauber, S.L. and Epstein, J.L. (1993). Parents’ attitudes and practices

of involvement in inner-city elementary and middle schools. In

Nancy F. Chavkin (ed) Families and Schools in a Pluralistic Society. New

York: SUNY Press, pp. 53-72

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children : cultural conflict in the classroom

New York: New Press


184

Department for Children, Schools and Families/ QCA (1995-2007)

ParentCentre; Help your child discover. Accessed October 2007 at http://

www.parentscentre.gov.uk/discover/

Dept of Education (1991) Circular 24/91. Parents as Partners in

Education.

Dept of Education and Science (2004) Circular PC12/04. Parent-

Teacher Meetings.

Department of Education (1995). Charting our Education Future. White

Paper on Education. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Department of Education and Science (1999). Primary School

Curriculum. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Department of Education and Science (2005). DEIS (Delivering

Equality of Opportunity in Schools) An Action Plan for Educational

Inclusion. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

Department of Education and Science. (2006) Supporting Assessment

in Primary Schools (Circular letter 0138/2006).

Desforges, C., with Abouchaar, A. (2003) The Impact Of Parental

Involvement, Parental Support And Family Education On Pupil

Achievement And Adjustment: A Literature Review, DES Research

Report No 433. Accessed October 2007 at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/

research/data/uploadfiles/RR433.doc

Dimmock, C.A.J. and O’Donoghue, T.A. (1997) Managerial

imperatives for the improvement of school reporting to parents.

International Journal of Educational Management, 11:4, 149-158.

Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as Learning: Using Classroom Assessment

to Maximise Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.


185

Educational Research Centre (ERC) (2000). Drumcondra English

Profiles. Dublin, ERC.

Educational Research Centre. (2007) Drumcondra Primary

Mathematics Test (Revised edition). Dublin, ERC.

Educational Research Centre (2007) Drumcondra Primary Reading

Test (Revised edition). ). Dublin, ERC.

Eccles, J.S. and Harold, R.D. (1996). Family Involvement in Children’s

and Adolescents’ Schooling. In Family-School Links: How do they affect

educational outcomes? A. Booth and J.F. Dunn, eds. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). “School/Family/Community Partnerships.

Caring for the Children We Share.” Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 76, No. 9,

701-712.

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, Family and Community Partnerships.

Preparing Educators and Improving Schools. Boulder, Colorado and

Oxford, UK: Westview Press.Epstein, J.L. and Dauber, S.L. (1991).

“School programs and teacher practices of parent involvement in

inner-city elementary and middle schools.” Elementary School Journal,

Vol. 91, 291-305.

Fowler, F. J. Jr. (2001). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Goddard, R.D. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the

measurement of collective efficacy: The development of a short form.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 1, 97–110.

Goddard, R.D., Hoy, W.K., and Hoy, A.W. (2000). Collective teacher

efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement.

American Education Research Journal, 37, 2, 479–507.


186

Government of Ireland. Data Protection Act. 1988. Dublin: The

Stationery Office.

Government of Ireland. Freedom of Information Act 1997.Dublin: The

Stationery Office.

Government of Ireland Education Act, 1998 Dublin: The Stationery

Office.

Government of Ireland Equal Status Act, 2000. Dublin, The Stationery

Office.

Government of Ireland. Data Protection (Amendment) Act, 2003.

Dublin, The Stationery Office.

Government of Ireland Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act. 2003

Dublin, The Stationery Office.

Government of Ireland. Education for Persons with Special Educational

Needs Act. 2004. Dublin, The Stationery Office

Griffiths, C., Norwich, B. & Burden, R.L. (2004). I’m glad I do not

take no for an answer: parent-professional relationships and dyslexia

friendly schools. Oxford Review of Education 30(3), 417-434.

Gutierrez, K.D and Rogoff, B. (2003) Cultural ways of learning:

individual traits or repertoires of practice Educational Researcher 32, 5,

19-25.

Hall, K. and Burke, W. (2003) Making Formative Assessment Work:

effective practice in the primary school Maidenhead: Open University

Press/McGrawHill

Hall, K. and Harding, A. (2002) Level descriptions and teacher

assessment in England: towards a community of assessment practice

Educational Research 44, 1, 1-15.


187

Hall, K. and Kavanagh, V. (2002) Primary assessment in the Republic

of Ireland: conflict and consensus Educational Management and

Leadership 30, 6, 261-274

Harlen, W. (2006) On the relationship between assessment for

formative and summative purposes. In J. Gardner (Ed). Assessment and

Learning, London: Sage.

Harris, Alma and Goodall, Janet (2007). Engaging parents in raising

achievement. Do parents know they matter? Research Report DSCF-

RW004. University of Warwick. Accessed January 2008 at

http://www.schoolsnetwork.org.uk/uploads/documents/DCFS%20

research%20 EPRA%20report_127139.pdf

Hatano, G. and Wertsch, J. (2001) Sociocultural approaches to

cognitive development: the constitutions of culture in mind Human

Development 44, 77-83.

Heck, R. H., Larsen, T. J., and Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). Instructional

leadership and school achievement: Validation of a causal model,

Educational Administration Quarterly, 26, 94-125.

Henderson, Anne T. and Berla, Nancy, (1994). A New Generation of

Evidence. The Family is Critical to Student Achievement. Washington, DC:

National Committee for Citizens in Education.

Henderson, A. T. and Mapp, K. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence. The

Impact of School, Family, and Community Connections on Student

Achievement. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development

Laboratory. Accessed at www.sedl.org/connections/

Hewson, C., Yule, P., Laurent, D. and Vogel, C. (2003). Internet Research

Methods: a practical guide for the social and behavioral sciences. London:

Sage


188

Hu, L., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in

covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new

alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Hughes, M. Wikeley, F. and Nash, T. (1994). Parents and their Children’s

Schools. Oxford: Blackwell.

Kelleghan, T., Sloane, K., Alvarez, B., and Bloom, B.S. (1993). The

Home Environment and School Learning: Promoting Parental Involvement

in the Education of Children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kunzman, R. (2003) From teacher to student: the value of teacher

education for the experienced teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, Vol

54; p. 241.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994) The dreamkeepers : successful teachers of

African American children. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school

relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education,

60, 73-85.

Lareau, A. (2003) Unequal Childhoods: class, race, and family life Berkeley:

University of California Press

Lave, J. (1996) Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind, Culture and

Activity, 3, 3, 149164

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral

Participation New York: CUP

Learning and Teaching Scotland. Parents as Partners in Learning.

Accessed October 2007 at http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/

parentsaspartnersinlearning/index.asp


189

Learning and Teaching Scotland, Principles and practice in Assessment is

for Learning. Accessed October 2007 at http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/

assess/

Learning and Teaching Scotland (2005). Assessment is for learning.

Information sheet. Learning and Teaching Scotland/Scottish

Qualifications Authority/Scottish Executive.

Lynch, K. and Lodge, A. (2002) Equality and Power in Schools:

Redistribution, Recognition and Representation. London: Routledge/

Falmer

Lyons M., Lynch, K., Close S, Sheerin E and Boland P (2003) Inside

Classrooms: The Teaching and Learning of Mathematics in Social Context.

Dublin: Institute of Public Administration

Mary Immaculate College (2007). Micra-T Reading Attainment Tests.

http://www.micrat.ie/

Mary Immaculate College (2007). Sigma-T Mathematics Attainment

Tests. http://www.micra-t.ie/SIGMA-T/index.htm

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools; translating research into action.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

McDermott, R. (2005) An entry into further language”; Contra

-mystifications in language hierarchies. In T. L. McCarty Language,

Literacy and Power in Schooling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Publishers, Mahwah, New Jersey

Mendoza, Jean , Katz, Lilian G. , Robertson Anne S. and Rothenburg,

Dianne (2003): Connecting with Parents in the Early Years. Accessed

December 2006 at http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/pubs/connecting.html


190

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis:

An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.

Moles, O.C. (1993). Collaboration between schools and

disadvantaged parents: obstacles and openings. In Nancy F. Chavkin

(ed) Families and Schools in a Pluralistic Society. New York: SUNY

Press., pp 21-52

National Council for Special Education (2006). Guidelines on the

Individual Education Plan Process. Dublin: The Stationery Office.

www.ncse.ie

National Network of Partnership Schools . Accessed October 2007 at

http://www.csos.jhu.edu/P2000/

NCCA (2006a ) Reporting children’s progress in primary schools:

Background paper. Dublin: Author.

NCCA (2006b ) Draft Report Card Templates Overview: Information for

Schools. Dublin: Author.

NCCA (2007). Assessment in the Primary School Curriculum. Guidelines

for Schools. Dublin: Author.

Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity; the socio-political context of

multicultural education. White Plains, N.Y. : Longman Publishers.

O’Brien, M. (2007). Mothers’ emotional care work in education and

its moral imperative, Gender and Education, 19, 2, 159 – 177

O’Donoghue, T.A and Dimmock, C.A.J. (2002). Teacher professional

development in the area of ‘School-Reporting-to-Parents’. Asia-

Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 30 (2), 169-180.Ogbu, J. (1982)

Cultural discontinuities and schooling, Anthropology and Education

Quarterly, 13(4), 290–307.


191

Olsson, U. H., Foss, T., Troye, S. V., and Howell, R. D. (2000). The

performance of ML, GLS & WLS estimation in structural equation

modeling under conditions of misspecification and non-normality,

Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 557-595.

Power, S. and Clark, A. (2000). The right to know: parents, school

reports and parents’ evening. Research Papers in Education 15 (1), 2000,

pp. 25-48

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) Partnerships with

Parents. Accessed October 2007 at http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_7138.

aspx

Ran, A. (2001) travelling on parallel tracks: Chinese parents and

English teachers. Educational Research Vol. 43 No. 3, pp 311–328

Reay, D. (1998). Class Work. Mothers’ involvement in their Children’s

Primary Schooling. London: UCL

Rogoff, B. (1995) Observing sociocultural activity on three planes:

participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship

In Sociocultural Studies of Mind Eds J.V Wertsch, P. del Rio, A. Alvarez

CUPRogoff, B. (2003) The Cultural Nature of Human Development

Oxford University Press.

Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., and Gray, P. (2004). Prior student

achievement, collaborative school processes, and collective teacher

efficacy, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3, 3, 163 - 188

Ryan, S. (1994). The Home-School-Community Liaison Scheme. Dublin:

Education Research Centre.

Sheehan, K. B. and McMillan, S. J. (1999). Response variation in

e-mail surveys: An exploration. Journal of Advertising Research, 39 (4),

45-54


192

Sheldon, S. B. and Epstein, J. L. (2005). Involvement counts: Family

and community partnerships and mathematics achievement. The

Journal of Educational Research, 98:4, 196-207.

Shields, P. (2006) Professional learning communities: an exploration.

Report of Alberta Education, Alberta, Canada.

Silverman, D. (2000) Doing Qualitative Research: A practical handbook.

London: Sage

Simons, H. (1996) The paradox of case study, Cambridge Journal of

Education, 26(2), 225-40.

Simons, H. and Usher, R. (2000) Situated Ethics in Educational

Research. London: Routledge Farmer.

Stiggins, R. (2002) Assessment Crisis: The Absence Of Assessment

FOR Learning. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol 83 (10), 758-765. Accessed

January 2008 at http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0206sti.htm

Sugrue, C. (2002) Irish teachers’ experiences of professional learning:

implications for policy and practice. Journal of In-service Education. Vol

28; 2, pp. 311-338.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and

Identity Cambridge University Press

Wolfendale, S. (2004). Getting the balance right: towards partnership in

assessing children’s development and educational potential. Department of

Education and skills Discussion Paper for TeacherNet- Working with

Parents. Accessed January 2008 at http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/

docbank/index.cfm?id=7302

Wolfendale, S. and Bryan, T. (2002) Evaluation of SEN parent

partnership in Wales, 2001. Wales, National Assembly of Wales. NASEN.

Yin, R.K. (1993) Applications of Case Study Research London: Sage


193

a p p E n d i x o n E

t h E c a S E S t u d i E S :

i n t E r v i E w S c h E d u l E S


194

Interview Schedule: Principal

Reporting to Parents in Primary Schools

Introducing the study and yourself, and assuring confidentiality

Thanks very much for participating in this work. This is a study of the ways schools

report to parents about their children’s learning. It is concerned with the views and

experiences of a range of people including parents, children and teachers. It is funded by

the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment – a body which advises the

Government about teaching and learning. It is being conducted by University College

Cork. My name is xxx.

Interviewing is one method we are using to understand the way schools report on

children’s learning to parents and we are particularly interested in principal’s views.

All the information we collect is confidential. This means that all participants are

rendered anonymous and neither they nor the schools to which they send their children

will be identifiable in any reports of the study. Real names are not used in analysing or

reporting the findings of the study.

We anticipate that this interview will last no more than 30-40 minutes. If you are willing

I would like to audio record it.

Background Information (for research team only)

Interviewer: Date:

Name School

No of Children in School No of Special Needs Child.

No of Immigrant Children No of Traveller Children

Total Number of Teachers

Mainstream Teachers Support Personnel

Number of other Teachers Length of time in Position


195

Your Experience of Reporting to Parents.

1. Can you give me an overview of the school’s policies regarding reporting on

children’s progress to parents?

- Parent-Teacher meetings and their frequency

- Parent-teacher meetings and their format

- Timing of meetings

- Oral reports –frequency and format

- Junior and Senior students

- Written reports – is there a template for school reports – how was this generated

– has it changed over the course of your leadership?

- School policies around reporting to parents –any documents available and have

they changed since you took up your role as principal

2. To what extent do you think this reporting to parents, influences, if at all, children’s

learning?

- Assessment practices

- Parent-teacher –student involvement in learning

3. What are the issues/concerns around reporting that you engage with in this school

context?

- Diversity of parents/students

- Quality

4. How do you monitor the effectiveness of the reporting arrangements in this school?

5. Have you made any new developments/changes in the way reporting happens over

the last years?

6. What do parents do with school reports?

a. do they share them with children?

b. do they discuss them with other parents

7. Is there anything else you think is important about how schools report to parents?

Thank the interviewee for her/his time and co-operation and remind her/him that all the

information they have given you is confidential.


196

Teacher Reflection Sheet

FOCUS GROUP

Teacher class level or teacher role (e.g. learning support…etc.): _________________

School: ___________________________

In order to fulfil our research brief for this study on how schools report to parents, we would like you

to respond to the following questions as a way to help us get started in this focus group meeting. We

will have about 5-10 min for the writing phase of this focus group.

1. What arrangements are in place for reporting to parents about children’s learning in

this school?

2. Describe the way in which you use report cards to report on children’s learning.

3. Describe how you use parent teacher meetings as a means of reporting to parents

about their child’s learning.


197

Teacher Interview Schedule





experiences of a range of people including parents, children and teachers. The study was

commissioned by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) – a

body which advises the Government about curriculum and assessment – and is being

conducted by a research team from the Education Department at University College

Cork (UCC). My name is ______.


children’s learning to parents and we are particularly interested in the views of teachers.





We anticipate that this interview will last no more than 30 minutes. If you are willing, I

would like to audio record it.


Interviewer: ______________________ Date: ______________________

Name School

No of Children in School No of Special Needs Child.

No of Immigrant Children No of Traveller Children

Total Number of Teachers

Number of mainstream classroom teachers Support Personnel (SNAs…etc.):

Number of other Teachers (Learning Support,…etc.) Length of time in your Position


198

Your Experience as a Teacher Reporting to Parents

1. Stories about informal and formal reporting to parents

a. Can you tell me about how you report informally to parents by way of an

example or two?

As an ______ teacher, how do you see this process?

b. Can you take me through the process of preparing and writing reports to parents

by way of an example?

As an ______ teacher, how do you see this process?

2. Reporting and learning: To what extent do you think this reporting to parents

influences, if at all, children’s learning?

3. Arrangements for use of report cards: Can you give me an overview of the

school’s arrangements regarding report cards on children’s progress to parents?

- Parent-teacher meetings

- Frequency, Format, Timing

- Oral reports

- Frequency, Format, Timing

- Junior and Senior students?

- Written reports:

- Is there a template for school reports? How was this generated?

- Has it changed over the course of your time in this school? If so, how?

- School policies around reporting to parents:

- Any documents available? Have they changed since you started working in this

school? If yes, how?

4. Guidelines and supports for using report cards: At the school level, what kinds of

guidelines and supports are there for teachers in preparing report cards for parents?

- Are reports standardized and uniform throughout school

- Support for teachers in reporting to parents

- staff meeting discussions re. objectives, improvements, legislation etc. – staff

development days, etc.

- Have you ever evaluated how the school reports to parents?

- Feedback from parents? Other Teachers.


199

- School Development Planning and reporting to parents

- Has a Whole School Evaluation (WSE) commented on school’s reporting

practices and policies? If yes, how?

- How are new teachers inducted into school policies?

5. Reporting about different types of students: Talk to me about the way you report

to parents of different types of students?

- Parents of immigrant students, Parents of traveller students, Special Needs Parents

of SEN students

6. Recent PT meeting: Tell me about a recent parent teacher meeting?

7. Use of PT meetings: How useful is the whole process of meeting with parents at

parent-teacher meetings?

8. Wrap up: Is there anything else you think is important about how schools report to

parents?




200

Parent Interview Schedule





experiences of a range of people including parents, children and teachers. It is funded by

the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment – a body which advises the

Government about teaching and learning. It is being conducted by University College

Cork. My name is xxx.


children’s learning to parents and we are particularly interested in parents’ views.





We anticipate that this interview will last no more than 25 minutes. If you are willing I

would like to audio record it.


Name: School:

Number of children you have in the school and their classes:

Interviewer’s Name: Date of interview:

Your Experience of Receiving School Reports about your Child/Children

1 How does the school keep you informed about your child’s learning?

• tell me about the information you get, tell me about your most recent experience.

• any written reports?

• any oral reports?

• when do you get this information?


201

• how frequently?

• parent teacher meetings and their format and frequency?

2. Do you find that school reports tell you what you need to know about your child’s

progress in school?

• do you get a chance to discuss the content of school reports with the teacher?

• do you get to influence what goes on written reports?

• do you understand the reports you get?

• if not, do you ask the school, other parent …?

• do you get enough information about your child as a learner and about goals for

your child’s learning?

• what else would you like to know?

3. What do you think are good ways of helping you understand how your child is

progressing in school?

• what do you see as the benefits of school reports?

• do you see any disadvantages or problems with school reports in your experience?

• would you like to see any changes in the ways used to report on your child’s

learning?

4. What do you do with the school reports?

• do you show it to your child?

• do you discuss the contents with your child, with anyone else?

5. Is there anything else you think is important about how schools report to parents?




202

Interview schedule: Parents of non-English speaking children

Introduction to the study and yourself, and assuring confidentiality

It is worth considering translating this section if there were a large number of parents

from one minority group in the school, e.g. poles .

Otherwise it is very important that the time is taken to communicate the main points.

There is the possibility that parents may feel there would be adverse repercussions for

their child/children if they expressed negative opinions, etc.

Questions:

1. Tell me about how the school has informed you about your child’s learning/progress?

• Tell me about the information you get, tell me about the most recent experience?

• Any written reports? How often? How helpful are these?

• Are there informal opportunities for you to meet your child’s teacher to discuss

her/his progress? How helpful are these?

• Did you get the chance to attend a Parent-teacher meeting? What was that

experience like for you?

• Does the teacher communicate with you using a school journal? If so, how helpful

is this?

• Do you get enough information about your child’s progress?

• What else would you like to know?

• Do you receive sufficient information about the learning goals for your child for

the level they are at?

Challenges for non-English-speaking parents

2. Tell me about any difficulties you have understanding

• School reports

• Comments in school journals

• Comments in copies

• Face-to-face discussions with teachers/school principals


203

3. Cultural differences.

• From your experience what was the most helpful in the way the school informed

you about the school and your child’s progress. How does your previous

experience compare with this experience here in Ireland?

•

Follow on with questions 3, 4 and 5 from Parent Schedule.


204

Interview Schedule for Focus Group with Children

Reporting to Parents in Primary School

Introducing the study and yourself and assuring confidentiality

Thanks very much for participating in this work. This is a study of the ways your school

reports to your parents about your learning and the progress you are making. In this

study we will be talking to young learners, some parents and teachers. This study is

funded by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment – a group of people

who advise the Government about teaching and learning. It is being done by University

College Cork. My name is xxx.

Interviewing is one of the methods we are using to understand the way schools report

on children’s learning to parents and we are particularly interested in your views as

young learners.

All the information is confidential. This means that the identity of those who participate,

like yourselves, will remain unknown to those reading the report of the study.

This interview will not last longer than 25 minutes, approximately. If you are willing to

agree, I would like to record the interview.

Background information (for research team only)

Names:

School:

Class:

Interviewer’s Name:

Date of Interview:

Begin interview with pupils completing short form with two questions:

When you get a school report how do you feel?

When there is a parent-teacher meeting how do you feel?


205

A. School Reports

Tell me about getting your school report.

1. What kind of information is there on the report card?

2. How do you feel about getting school reports?

3. Tell me about what happened when your last report arrived home.

4. Did you discover anything about yourself? Did it change how you see yourself?

5. Do you chat to your friends about your reports? Do you find this helpful?

6. If you could design a school report to tell your parents about yourself, how would

you change the school report?

7. How could school reports help you better learn in school?

8. How do you think the teacher decides on what to write in the school report?

B. Parent-teacher Meetings

1. Do you attend oarent-teacher meetings? Would you like to? Would it help you with

your learning?

2. Do you find out about what is discussed at parent-teacher meetings? 3.

3. Have you any ideas about how schools could communicate better with your parents/

guardians about your learning?

Thank you for talking to me – it has been very interesting.


206

Reflection Sheet for Focus Group with Children

Please draw a circle around the ‘face’ that best describes how you feel about each

sentence

1. When my school sends a report card home I feel….

2. When my parents read my report card and talk to me about my learning in school I

feel….

Thank you for completing this sheet.


207

a p p E n d i x 2 :

E x a m p l E S o F

r E p o r t c a r d S


208

rEportcard1(Identifying details have been removed from these reports)


209

rEportcard2


210

rEportcard3(a)


211

rEportcard3(b)


212


213

a p p E n d i x 3 :

t h E S u r v E y

c o m p l E t E d

b y p r i n c i p a l S


214

School Survey Form:16 For Completion by School Principal

1. THE SURVEY

The purpose of this survey form is to create a picture of your school’s reporting practice,

as part of a systematic random sample of primary schools being undertaken by the

research team from UCC commissioned by the NCCA. This information will help the

UCC research team to write a report for the NCCA on current practices in relation to

reporting to parents in primary schools. Results of this survey will be presented in

aggregate form, that is, overall statistics on how schools as a whole responded to survey

questions will be presented. Individual schools will NOT be identified in reporting the

survey results.

2. GENERAL INFORMATION ON YOUR SCHOOL

1. School Roll Number:

2. School Address:

3. Position held in school:

Teaching principal

Administrative principal

4. Student Population:

Number of Students

Number of Boys

Number of Girls

Number of Families

5. Location of Your School

Urban

Rural

16 For ease of reading, this is a Word version of the questions included in the on-line survey. Sample pages from the survey as it appeared on-screen are given at the end of this appendix.


215

6. Age Range of Your School:

Junior School

Senior School

Vertical School (all classes to sixth)

7. Gender Mix of Your School:

Boys only

Girls only

Mixed

Junior Mixed / Senior Boys

Junior Mixed / Senior Girls

8. Language of Instruction

English-medium

Irish-medium: Gaelscoil

Irish-medium: Scoil sa Ghaeltacht

Other (please specify)

9. School Support Programme (DEIS):

Urban Band 1

Urban Band 2

Rural Not in the Programme

10. Ethnicity of families whose children attend school (Tick one only)

90%+ Irish

10-25% Other ethnicity

26-50% Other ethnicity

50% Other ethnicity

11. What was the infant intake for your school in September 2007?

Total intake of infants

Intake of infants from other ethnicities

12. What is the number of Irish traveller students in your school?

Number


216

13. Please list the three largest ethnic groups in school in order (e.g; 1.Irish, 2. Polish,

3.Nigerian)

First

Second

Third

14. Estimate the number of families who have difficulty communicating in English?

Number

15. What is the number of students in your school with a formal special education needs

(SEN) designation?

Number

16. Number of teachers in various roles (Please insert number)

Class Teacher

Special Educational Needs Teacher (e.g. Learning Support/Resource)

Language Support Teacher

Home-School Liaison Coordinator

Resource Teacher for Travellers


217

3. CURRENT RECORDING, COMMUNICATING AND REPORTING

PRACTICES

1. What information (i.e., teacher notes, results of teacher made tests) does your school

keep as part of each child’s record of progress/achievement? (Tick all that apply)

Junior Infants

Senior Infants

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th

Social and personal development

Behaviour

Attendance

Grades or marks for each subject taught in each curricular area


Comments of learning support, SEN or resource teachers

Results/Marks/Grades of Standardised Tests (e.g., Drumcondra)

2. What information does your school enter onto each child’s report card? (Tick all that

apply)

Junior Infants

Senior Infants



Behaviour

Attendance

Grades or marks for each subject taught in each curricular area


Comments of learning support, SEN or resource teachers

Results/Marks/Grades of Standardised Tests (e.g., Drumcondra)


218

3. Does your school provide written reports of children’s progress to parents?

Yes

No

4. What information do teachers currently report to parents in the written report?

(Please tick all relevant boxes)

During School Year

At End of Year By Appointment

Progress in subjects or curriculum areas


The child’s strengths as a learner


Areas of particular achievement

Children’s active participation in class work

Difficulties related to homework completion

Results of standardised tests

Ideas to help parents support their child’s learning

Child’s own input or comments


5. What format is used on report cards? (Tick all that apply)

Infants 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th

DES

Fallons

Created by class teacher

Created by school

6. When are report cards sent to parents (Tick all that apply)

Junior Infants

Senior Infants


End of Year

Mid-Year

Other


219

4. CURRENT RECORDING, COMMUNICATING AND REPORTING

PRACTICES (contd.)

1. Does your school have any procedures in place to help teachers ensure consistency in

their use of evaluative terms like ‘excellent,’ ‘good,’ etc?

Yes

No

2. If yes, please indicate the procedures (Tick all that apply)

Teachers meet at class level to agree terms used in report cards

School has written document describing terms used in report cards

Whole staff discuss and agree terms used in report cards


4. How does your school help parents to understand terms such as ‘excellent,’ ‘very

good,’…etc? (Tick all that apply)

Class teacher talks to parents at parent teacher meeting

Learning support, SEN or resource teacher talks to parents

Principal talks to parents

Report includes a note or table explaining scales

Communication through written comments on homework and class work

Note or explanation on school website


4. Do teachers currently discuss the results of standardised tests with parents?

Yes

No

5. If YES, what information is shared?

Written form

Verbally at PT meeting

Raw scores

Standard scores

STEN

Percentiles



220

6. If YES, how does your school help parents to understand standardised tests?

(Tick the two that most accurately characterises how yours addresses this issue)

Class teacher talks to parents at parent teacher meeting

Learning support, SEN or resource teacher talks to parents

Principal talks to parents

Report includes a note or table explaining scales

Note or explanation on school website

7. Does your school operate a behaviour reporting system and communicate the

outcome to parents? (E.g. Star system)

Yes

No

8. Does your school use student diaries/journals for reporting to parents?

Yes

No

9. To what degree do you agree with each of these statements

Strongly Disagree

Disagree No Opinion

Agree Strongly Agree

In this school, the parents of ‘new’ immigrants provide a significant communication challenge since their first language is not English

In this school, even when parents of ‘new’ immigrants speak English, communication challenges often arise due to differences in dialect and idiomatic use of English

10. In order to improve communication with parents who do not speak English the

school has in the past year used the following strategies (Tick all that apply)

Asked a parent or other adult from that language community who speaks English to

translate

Asked student (of post-primary age) from that language community who speaks

English to translate

Asked student (of primary age) from that language community who speaks English to

translate


221

Ask an Irish-trained teacher who speaks one or more required languages to assist in

communicating with parents

Ask a non-Irish trained teacher who speaks one or more required languages to assist in

communicating with parents

11. To what degree do you agree with the following statement?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree

Overall, we are pleased with our current policies in reporting to parents

12. Please elaborate on any ways in which your school shares information with parents?

Yes No


School and/or Parents’ Association produces newsletter for families






Request parent to tutor/support students in the classroom

Invite parents and the community to school for student awards

Offer parents or students library books to use at home


Offer videotapes on learning (e.g., literacy) that families can view at school or at home

Offer students and families curriculum-related activities learning activities/clubs after school (e.g. homework clubs will fall under this – may not necessarily involve parents or even teachers)


Organise visits to school by members of wider community



222

13. If yes, rate its effectiveness. If no, rate its potential effectiveness

Not Possible in this School

Unhelpful Somewhat helpful

Very Helpful


School and/or Parents’ Association produces newsletter for families






Request parent to tutor/support students in the classroom

Invite parents and the community to school for student awards

Offer parents or students library books to use at home


Offer videotapes on learning (e.g., literacy) that families can view at school or at home

Offer students and families curriculum-related activities learning activities/clubs after school (e.g. homework clubs will fall under this – may not necessarily parents or involve even teachers)


Organise visits to school by members of wider community



223

5. IMPRESSIONS AND ASPIRATIONS

1. Impressions of the report cards school use at present:

Very Unsatisfied Unsatisfied No Opinion Satisfied Very Satisfied

Our level of satisfaction with current report cards is…

2. Please indicate which themes your school would include if you were designing report

cards for parents?

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree No Opinion

Space for student comment

Space for parent comment

More space for comment on areas such as art, PE, drama

Space for input by learning support, SEN or resource teacher

Create an online version that parents could check on the web

3. Do teachers involve/include children when meeting with their parents at PT

meetings?

Yes

No


224

4. Who attends parent-teacher meetings?

never rarely sometimes often

Mother

Father

Both parents

Grandparent

Pupil with parent

5. Please indicate your evaluation of how parents respond to hearing about aspects of

their children’s learning and development at parent teacher meetings

Very Negative

Negative Mixed Positive Very Positive

Very Positive

Very Positive Hearing about their child’s social and personal development

Hearing about child’s strengths as a learner

Hearing about child’s learning difficulties

Hearing about their child’s progress in subjects or curriculum areas

Hearing about ideas to help their child learning

Hearing about difficulties related to homework completion

Hearing about their child’s contentment at school

Hearing about their child’s active participation in class work

6. Our school has a written policy statement on use of report cards

Yes

No

7. Our school has a written policy statement on parent teacher meetings

Yes

No


225

8. Storage Format of Report Cards:

Yes No

Paper copy kept

Electronic/digital kept

Reports are stored by class group

Cumulative individual record, i.e. all reports are stored for individual students


9. For how long does your school store copies of the written reports issued to parents?

(Tick appropriate box)

Until pupil leaves primary school

Until pupil leaves post-primary school

Until child is 21 years


10. Induction for Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) (tick all that apply)

Written documentation for NQTs about school’s reporting policies and practice

Teacher designated to mentor NQTs re. reporting and parent-teacher meetings

Informal information provided to NQTs by other teachers



226

6. IMPACT ON LEARNING

1. How true are each of these statements for your school?

Untrue for all

Untrue for most

True for some

True for most

True for all

Students’ home life and family background provide so many advantages the students here are bound to learn

Teachers in this school are able to get through to difficult students

Teachers here are confident they will be able to motivate their students

Teachers in this school really believe every child can learn

If a child doesn’t want to learn teachers here give up

These students come to school ready to learn

Students here just aren’t motivated to learn

The opportunities in this community help ensure that these students will learn

Learning is more difficult at this school because students are worried about their safety

Teachers in this school do not have the skills to deal with student disciplinary problems

Overuse of alcohol and drugs in the community make learning difficult for students here

Teachers here don’t have the skills needed to produce meaningful student learning


227

7. SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES AND FUTURE PRIORITIES

1. Is the Board of Management involved in decisions about reporting to parents?

Yes

No

If yes, how is the Board of Management involved in decisions about reporting to parents?

2. What do you think is the most successful feature of your school’s reporting practice?

3. What is/are the greatest challenge(s) your school experiences in reporting to parents?

4. What would you like to prioritise in developing your school’s reporting practice?

5. If you wish, please comment on any other aspect of reporting to parents

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY!


228

On-line Survey Sample Pages


229


230


231

Email to Principals: Invitation to Complete Survey

Dear Principal,

Click on link on line below to complete and submit online survey:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=39qaZqzjo0jPOdxvVPaBYA_3d_3d

******************************************************************

Dear Principal,

Following up on our phone call to you/school secretary earlier this week, we are now sending you

the online survey as part of an NCCA-commissioned study on Reporting to Parents in Primary

School.

We would greatly appreciate your completing the online survey. It will take 15-20 minutes of your

time to answer the questions. Each school that fully completes the survey will be entered in a draw

for a laptop computer.

Please complete your questionnaire in the next few days. Because only a relatively small number of

schools are being surveyed (i.e. we are using a stratified random sample), your response is very

important to us. That is, as we are only surveying 412 of 3292 primary schools each school’s

response is vital is in developing an accurate profile of how schools report to parents nationally. In

this context, the IPPN encourages principals to complete and send back the survey.

Your answers will, of course, be strictly confidential. Individual schools will NOT be identified in

reporting the survey results.

If you have any difficulty accessing or completing the survey, or would like to speak to the research

team please contact Dr. Paul Conway: [email protected]

Thank you in advance for your time and effort.

Paul

UCC Research Team on NCCA-commissioned study: Reporting to Parents in Primary School

Prof. Kathy Hall, Head of Education & Study Director Dr. Paul Conway, Dr. Anne Rath,

Dr. Rosaleen Murphy and Ms. Jacinta McKeon


232

Boyd Freeman [email protected]+ 353 (0)87 2442506